Vinod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3087 of 2015 =========================================================== Vinod Kumar, Son of late Shatrudhan Ram, R/O at ManikPur, P.O. Keshavpur, P.S. Simri , District- Buxar .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development Department , Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Director, (Primary) Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Katihar

4. District Program Officer - Establishment Education, Katihar.

5. The District Education Officer, Katihar

6. The District Education Establishment Committee, Katihar

7. The Block Education Officer, Manihari, District- Katihar

8. Nilam Kumari D/O not known, Presently posted as Head Mistress at Middle School Azampur Gola, Manihari Block, District- Katihar .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, A.G. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-05-2015 A very pointed submission has been made by counsel for the petitioner while assailing Annexure-1, which is the order of transfer issued by the District Programme Officer, Establishment Education, Katihar. The impugned order is dated 23.01.2015, whose quashing the petitioner wants.

Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that within one year of the posting of the petitioner in the present school he has been ousted to accommodate the private respondent no. 8 and that too in total contravention of the rules indicated by the State Authorities

Patna High Court CWJC No.3087 of 2015 dt.20-05-2015 2/3 themselves. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the Bihar State Nationalized Primary School Teacher (Transfer) Rules, 2006. Emphasis is on Rule 3 Sub rule Kha and Ga. The relevant rules are reproduced hereinbelow:

If the above provisions are taken into consideration, the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 may require interference. Learned Senior Counsel representing the private respondent submits and takes shelter under the pleadings and assertions made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Staterespondents. According to them, the Committee took a conscious decision taking into consideration the Letter no. 102 dated 30th of January, 2013 annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 4. They have also brought on record Annexure-B, which is said to be the decision of the Establishment Committee of the District of Katihar, which forms the basis for issuance of Annexure-1.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3087 of 2015 dt.20-05-2015 3/3 If the decisions are not taken in conformity with the prescribed rules, which are statutory in nature no amount of explanation as to the reason for such transfer can withstand judicial scrutiny. Any decision which is required to be taken has to be taken in terms of the prescribed procedure and the rules which in the opinion of the Court has not been adhered to. Whatever be the reasons for posting of the private respondent to the school in question, the fact is that it has not been done within the framework of Rule 3 and the Sub rules quoted hereinabove.

Writ application is allowed. Annexure- 1 is quashed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Vats/- U