Full Judgment
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd June, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition, being WP (S) No. 3210 of 2005, on the ground that the transfer of the petitioner from the post of District Superintendent of Education to the post of Principal, Zila School, Chaibasa was beyond the prescribed rules.
2. Aggrieved by, the order passed by the learned Single. Judge, the writ petitioner has preferred the instant appeal and, appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate, submitted that the transfer order dated 8th November, 2004, which was impugned in the writ petition, was tainted with malice. Mr. Rajesh Kumar contended that earlier also, an attempt had been made to transfer the petitioner to a post where the minimum qualification of a candidate was required to be Post Graduate, whereas the petitioner is only a Graduate. The writ petition, which was filed earlier against the said order, being WP (S) No. 6223 of 2004, was duly admitted and an interim order was passed on 1st December, 2004, staying the impugned order of transfer in the meantime.
3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar urged that in spite of the said order of stay in the earlier writ petition, the respondents have once again transferred the petitioner to a post where the minimum qualification required is that of a trained Post Graduate Teacher, whereas the petitioner is only a Graduate. It was urged that such transfer order was passed only with a view to remove the writ petitioner/appellant from the post of District Superintendent of Education, Gumla, and to favour the respondent No. 5, who was the previous Principal of the Zila School at Chaibasa, and has now been posted as District Superintendent of Education.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar submitted that the same criteria, as in the earlier writ petition, continued to exist as far as the instant order of transfer is concerned and since the same has been passed with mala fide intent, the same is also required to be stayed.
5. On behalf of the State of Jharkhand and its authorities, Mr. Pradip Modi, however, contended that according to the Rules relating to Higher Secondary Educational Institution, the promotee from the Subordinate Service was only required to be a trained Graduate and was thereafter eligible to be considered for appointment as Principal, as has been done in the petitioner's case. Mr. Modi urged that the appellant/writ petitioner could not have any grievance as far as the impugned order of transfer is concerned, and that, he was not prejudiced in any way by such order of transfer. The same stand has been taken on behalf of respondent No. 5 and, in addition, it has been urged that pursuant to the policy of the State Government to allow the candidates of the Bihar Education Service Class-II to have work experience in all departments, the petitioner had been transferred to an administrative post. In addition, it was also urged on behalf of respondent No. 5 that a departmental proceeding had been commenced against the writ petitioner on several charges and having been found quality of the said charges, a decision had been taken not to appoint the petitioner in any administrative post of the time being. There was, in fact, no mala fide intention in that regard. Such stand taken on behalf of respondent No. 5 has, of course, been denied on behalf of the writ petitioner and it was contended that the disciplinary proceedings was taken only to prevent the petitioner from continuing in the post of District Superintendent of Education for which he had the requisite qualification.
6. During the course of hearing, various Rules were referred to including the latest Rules relating to Schools which had been taken over by the Government, but it was pointed out by Mr. Modi, appearing for the State, that as far as the petitioner was concerned, it is the Rules of 1973, which would prevail and that the same provided that promotees need not have the additional qualification of being Post Graduate Trained Teachers.
7. On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we fail to understand the objection being taken by the appellant against the order of transfer by which he has been posted as Principal of the Zila School at Chaibasa. The appellant has been transferred in such post in the same scale of pay and he can have no grievance against such transfer. The objection being taken on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant appears to have been correctly assessed by the learned Single Judge and we do not see any reason to differ.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. The appellant/writ petitioner will be at liberty to question the punishment meted out to him in the disciplinary enquiry in other proceedings, if so advised.