Jharkhand High Court
Sudhir Kumar Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand on 5 July, 2018
Author: S.N.Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHAKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S)No.2821 of 2017
1. Sudhir Kumar Mandal.
2. Basant Kumar Tuddu.
3. Lakhi Ram Murmu.
4. Motilal Ravidas.
5. Ramjee Prasad Saha.
6. Nakul Tatwa.
7. Mohan Kumar Kisku.
8. Radheshyam Bhagat.
9. Shambhu Kumar Sharma.
10. Maheshwar Prasad Yadav.
11. Bhartendu Kumar.
12. Md. Hussain.
13. Nishikant Tanti.
14. Upendra Ramdas.
15. Madhukar Mandal.
16. Anand Gautam. ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist.
Ranchi.
3. Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Deptt.,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District-Ranchi.
4. Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment
Committee, Godda, P.O. and P.S. Godda, Dist. Godda.
5. District Superintendent of Education cum Secretary, District Education
Establishment Committee, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, Dist. Godda.
... ... ... ... ...Respondents
With
W.P.(S)No.2800 of 2017
1. Amarkant Yadav.
2. Siddheshwar Hembrom.
3. Anil Kumar Sah.
4. Prakash Choubey.
5. Ashok Kumar Bhandari.
6. Shyamlal Marandi.
7. Shashikant Mandal.
8. Bipin Kumar Mandal.
9. Poloush Marandi.
10. Sanjay Kumar Sah.
11. Manwel Baski.
12. Nagender Das.
13. Babuji Tuddu.
14. Dilip Kumar Bhandari.
15. Sunil Kumar Manjhi.
16. Sonalal Chore Hembrom.
17. Lucas Soren.
18. Suleman Hembrom.
19. Prakash Yadav.
20. Atma Ram Marandi.
2
21. Gunadhar Singh.
22. Gabriel Tuddu.
23. Garachand Tuddu.
24. Bhim Ravidas.
25. Sunil Kumar Sah.
26. Mahendra Marandi.
27. Narendra Murmu.
28. Santosh Kumar Thakur.
29. Vivekanand Bhandari.
30. Mahendra Prasad.
31. Vidyapati Ranjan.
32. Harikishore Thakur.
33. Madan Kumar.
34. Gopal Jha.
35. Manuel Tuddu.
36. Kisun Krishna Kumar Kisku.
37. Hari Kishore Gandharw.
38. Subhash Chandra Goswami.
39. Alfons Tuddu.
40. Ujjawal Chandra Dutt.
41. Shankar Murmu.
42. Hemant Kumar.
43. Manoranjan Kumar Singh.
44. Matla Hembrom. ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District-Ranchi.
3. Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Deptt.,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District-Ranchi.
4. Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment
Committee, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, Dist. Godda.
5. District Superintendent of Education cum Secretary, District Education
Establishment Committee, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, Dist. Godda.
6. Range Education Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, Dist. Godda.
7. Block Education Extension Officer, Poraiyahat East, P.O. & P.S.
Poraiyahat, Dist. Godda.
8. Block Education Extension Officer, Poraiyahat West, P.O. & P.S.
Poraiyahat, Dist. Godda.
9. Block Education Extension Officer, Godda East, P.O. & P.S. Godda,
District-Godda.
10. Jaiprakash Mandal.
11. Brajnandan Maraiya.
12. Rajesh Kumar Singh.
13. Shiv Shankar Prasad Sah.
14. Md. Nasir Ahmad. ... ... ...Respondents
W.P.(S)No.2854 of 2017
1. Ramdeo Thakur.
2. Kamruddin Ansari.
3. Ajit Kumar Singh.
4. Subodh Kumar Mandal.
3
5. Md. Monazir.
6. Md. Nesar Ahmad.
7. Nandkumar Jha.
8. Dilip Kumar Mandal.
9. Arun Kumar Manjhi.
10. Manoj Kumar Gupta.
11. Rupam Kumar.
12. Prakash Yadav.
13. Kanti Prasad Hazari.
14. Rajesh Kumar Das.
15. Anjani Kumar Mishra.
16. Ratan Kumar Choudhary.
17. Gahnu Manjhi.
18. Md. Kyamuddin.
19. Jata Shankar Jha.
20. Alok Chandra Madhu.
21. Pradip Kumar Sah.
22. Sant Lal Marandi.
23. Ram Narayan Singh.
24. Jai Kant Yadav.
25. Md. Ahmad Hussain.
26. Prashidh Narayan Singh.
27. Surya Prakash Jha.
28. Jaikant Ravidas.
29. Narsing Prasad Das.
30. Stefen Hansda.
31. Chhakuchand Marandi.
32. Krishnadeo Mandal.
33. Jaiprakash Mandal.
34. Anjan Kumar.
35. Ashok Kumar Marandi.
36. Pradeep Kumar Yadav.
37. Nirmal Chandra Dubey.
38. Amar Nath Mandal.
39. Pramod Mehra.
40. Panchu Soren.
41. Sunil Tudu.
42. Dubay Marandi. ... ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District-Ranchi.
3. Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Deptt.,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnatpur,
Dist. Ranchi.
4. Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment
Committee, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, Dist. Godda.
5. District Superintendent of Education cum Secretary, District Education
Establishment Committee, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, Dist. Godda.
... ... ... ... ...Respondents
---------
4 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners: Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G.
---------
15/ 05.07.2018 The order of transfer dated 13.05.2017 is under challenge. After
some argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhanu Kumar assisted by Ms. Bharti Kumar and Ms. Pinkey Tiwari very fairly submits that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the respondents to reconsider the case of transfer of the petitioners in view of the objection raised by the petitioners against the transfer order which is not in accordance with law.
2. Learned Counsel further argues that though the petitioners have joined the transferred post but they are aggrieved by the order of transfer by which they have been posted at far-away places from their native place i.e. Home Block.
3. Mr. Bhanu Kumar draws the attention of the Court towards Rules framed for transfer of the elementary teachers which is at page 50 Annexure-3 dated 16.02.2001. Though 1994 Rules of the Bihar which relates to transfer of teachers was adopted by the State of Jharkhand but with certain amendments. Rule 3 (2) (ii) of the said Rule is deleted and substituted as follows- "posting of teachers, as far as possible except for administrative exigencies, will normally be done in their Home Block".
Argument has been advanced by the learned Counsel that while issuing the order of transfer, the respondent ought to have taken into consideration for posting of the elementary teachers in their respective Home Blocks and if posts or vacant seats are not available in the Home Block then only they could have been posted in other Blocks. However, since the petitioners have joined their transferred post in compliance of the Courts order, the respondent may be directed to reconsider the case of petitioners, if they prefer a fresh representation before the competent authority i.e. D.S.E., Godda.
4. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.
5. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Abhay Prakash and Mr. Ravi Kumar vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, learned senior counsel very fairly accepts that if a direction is given by this Court to file a fresh representation for reconsideration of the cases of the petitioners in pursuance to 1994 Rules 5 related to transfer of Teachers, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
6. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is a settled proposition of law that employee has no legal right to be posted forever at a particular place or a place of his own choice. Since transfer is an incidence of service and as per the service conditions, in public interest and for efficiency in public administration, employees are to be posted from one place to another place.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the in the case of Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245, has held as under:
" No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574."
While dealing with similar case in "Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damador Prasad Pandey and others, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 299, the Hon'ble Court held in para-4 as under:
" 4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by mala fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer. Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation of operative guidelines the court cannot interfere with it. Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any operative guidelines or rules, the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it."
7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, legal propositions of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference 6 is warranted in the instant writ petition. Admittedly, no legal right has accrued to the petitioners to be posted at particular place but simultaneously the transfer order cannot be issued in utter violation of the statutory provisions. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners taking into account 1994 rules for transfer of the teachers particularly, Rule 3 (2) (ii) which was deleted and substituted as, "posting of teachers, as far as possible except for administrative exigencies, will normally be done in their Home Block."
8. Petitioners are directed to file fresh representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in turn, the respondents are directed to consider the same in view of the aforesaid rules and pass a speaking order, assigning concrete and valid reasons for consideration/ non-consideration of the cases of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petitions stands disposed of.
[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.] P.K.S./ kunal