Patna High CourtL.P.A/2068/2016dismissed

Subhash Prasad Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-05-09Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.2068 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1431 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Subhash Prasad Singh, Son of Sri Narayan Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Koilama, Police Station- Haspura, Distsrict- Aurangabad.

2. Md. Ahmad Ansari, Son of Md. Jayasuddin Ansari, resident of VillageMuslimabad, Police Station- Haspura, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Appellants

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Director in Chief (Administration), Department of Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Regional Deputy Director, Department of Health Services, Magadh Commissionary, Gaya.

7. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Aurangabad.

8. The District Election officer cum District Magistrate, Aurangabad. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Suryadeo Yadav, A.A.G. 9. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 09-05-2017 An administrative order of transfer was challenged in the writ petition and the learned Writ Court finding transfer to be an administrative consideration, declined to interfere in the matter. We have considered the averments made in the Memorandum of Appeal and the writ petition and find that no case

Patna High Court LPA No.2068 of 2016 (2) dt.09-05-2017 2/2 is made out for interfering with the administrative order of transfer. The contention of the petitioners is that during the period of election when the order of transfer of the petitioners was issued they had not completed three years' period.

Finding no tenable or legal grounds raised in the writ petition for challenging to the transfer order, which was a routine transfer, we see no reason to make any indulgence in the matter with regard to issue of transfer in question. The appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./- U