ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.
2. The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer holding class-II gazetted post in the State Government, has challenged the issuance of Annexure-10, i.e. the notification dated 3.4.2008, issued by the Rural Development Department, transferring him from Ramgarh (Dumka) to Work Sub-Division-II, Dumka in place of Sayed Zamil Asgar, respondent No. 8 herein and the respondent No. 8 who was posted in Works Sub-Division-II, Dumka has been transferred to Ramgarh (Dumka) in place of the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after serving in various capacities at various places, he was transferred and posted on the post of Assistant Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation Works Sub-Division Dumka-II vide notification dated 27.12.2006 and the respondent No. 8 Zamil Asgar was posted as Assistant Engineer work Sub-Division Ramgarh. The petitioner joined on his transferred post and started functioning there.
4. Further case of the petitioner is that on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee vide notification dated 31.12.2007 vide Annexure-1, he was transferred and posted as Assistant Engineer, R.E.O. Works Division, Ramgarh (Dumka) whereas by similar notification dated 31.12.2007, respondent No. 8 was transferred from Ramgarh and posted as Assistant Engineer R.E.O. Works Sub-Division Dumka-II at Dumka. The petitioner joined at Ramgarh on 21.2.2008, but since the respondent No. 8 was not handing over charge to him and as such by issue of Annexure-4 dated 6.1.2008 the Executive Engineer directed the petitioner to relinquish the charge of previous posting Le. of Dumka and assume charge at Ramgarh. Accordingly the petitioner assumed charge at Ramgarh on 7.1.2008, which was duly accepted by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner also drew salary from there at Ramgarh.
5. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 8, who initially did not obey the annual transfer order dated 31.12.2007, subsequently joined at Dumka on 14.2.2008.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that within a period of three months from the date of his joining at Ramgarh, he has 'been again transferred back to Dumka from Ramgarh by issue of Annexure-10 to Works Sub-Division at Dumka and the respondent No. 8 has been brought back to Ramgarh from Dumka vide notification dated 3.4.2008 (Annexure-10).
7. Being aggrieved by the order of re-transfer, the petitioner applied for supply of the documents relating to his transfer from Dumka to Ramgarh under the Right to Information Act and the petitioner was supplied the copies of the note sheets as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
8. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from perusal of Annexure-9, i.e. the note sheet of the Department, it would be clear as to how and under what circumstances the notification contained in Annexure-10 has been issued with mala fide intention only to accommodate the respondent No. 8 at the instruction of the Minister In-charge of Rural Engineer Organisation. He further submitted that though the transfer of the petitioner was seriously objected to by the Secretary of the Department, but overruling all the objections, the impugned notification, Annexure-10 has been issued at the instance of the Minister in most illegal and arbitrary manner without even recommendation of the Establishment Committee. Mr. Sinha further submitted that no doubt transfer of a Government servant from one place to another is an exigency of the service but in case the Government decides to transfer a Government servant prematurely, i.e. before completing the normal period of stay at one station, then in that case, as per the policy decision, it can be done only in administrative exigency on the basis of need and urgency of work and under special circumstances and those reasons should be reflected in the transfer order. It is submitted that in the present case the impugned notification i.e. Annexure-10 does not show any such reason that there was any such administrative exigency for transfer of the petitioner again within the period of three months from Ramgarh to Dumka. It was done only to illegally accommodate the respondent No. 8 and therefore, the order of transfer as contained in Annexure-10 is liable to be quashed.
In support of his submission Mr. Sinha has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Suraj Deo Ram v. State of Jharkhand reported in .
9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent No. 8 has also appeared and filed separate counter affidavit. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, is absolutely vague and it does not meet the points raised by the petitioner. In an evasive manner, it has been stated in the said counter affidavit that a Minister-in-Charge of the Department has full authority under Rule 21 of the Rules of the Executive Business to transfer a Government servant posted in the department in administrative exigency and in work interest. It has also been stated in the said counter affidavit of the State that perusal of Annexures 9 and 10 would reveal the exigencies and justification of transfer.
I find that neither the counter affidavit filed by the State nor the documents annexed as Annexures 9 and 10 to the Writ Petition reveal any such administrative exigency and special circumstances to transfer the petitioner from Ramgarh to Dumka and likewise the respondent No. 8 from Dumka to Ramgarh within a short span of time.
10. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 8 Md. Zamil Asgar, it appears that he has taken a specific plea that the writ petitioner was previously posted at Ramgarh (Dumka) from 31.12.2003 and after he completed 3 years at that station i.e. at Ramgarh, he was transferred to R.E.O. Works at Dumka vide Notification dated 27.12.2006 where he joined on 11.1.2007. According to the respondent No. 8, by the said Notification dated 27.12.2006, he was transferred from Kundhlt (Jamtara) to Ramgarh (Dumka) where he joined but within a period of one year, by issue of Notification dated 31.12.2007, he was again transferred from Ramgarh to Dumka and the writ petitioner was brought back to Ramgarh from Dumka.
In reply to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the respondent No. 8 further stated that the Minister In-charge, on a representation made on behalf of the respondent No. 8, has passed the impugned order of transfer considering the fact that the writ petitioner has remained at Ramgarh for three years 2003 to 2006 whereas, this respondent No. 8 was transferred from Ramgarh within a period of one year and therefore there was no illegality in transferring the writ petitioner from Ramgarh to Dumka.
11. The plea which has been raised by the respondent No. 8 in his counter affidavit and in his rejoinder to the counter affidavit that the Minister Incharge, after taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner was posted at Ramgarh for three years and therefore, he was transferred to Dumka again does not find place either in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State or in the Note Sheets which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-9.
It is also relevant to state at this juncture that even if it is accepted that the respondent No. 8, who Joined at Ramgarh on 7.1.2007, was transferred from that place within a period of one year to Dumka vide Notification dated 31.12.2007 and the petitioner has already remained for three years at Ramgarh in between 2003 to 2006 but that order of transfer issued on 31.12.2007 (Annexure-1) has not been challenged by the petitioner before any Forum and therefore, the illegality or validity of said transfer order contained in Notification dated 31.12.2007 is not to be considered in the present writ petition. As a matter of fact, in the writ petition, the challenge is the Notification No. 999 dated 3.4.2008 whereby the writ petitioner has been again transferred from Ramgarh to Dumka within a period of three months from the date of his joining at Ramgarh and that too without any recommendation of the Establishment Committee or without any administrative exigency or under any special circumstances. This action of the State-respondent is unjustified and is against the transfer policy of the State Government.
12. Accordingly, I find merit in this writ application and as such, the same is allowed. The order of transfer as contained in Annexure-10 transferring the petitioner from Ramgarh to Dumka and the respondent No. 8 from Dumka to Ramgarh by Notification No. 999 dated 3.4.2008. are hereby quashed.
13. However, there shall be no order as to costs.