Judgment:
ORDER
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of his transfer dated 18.6.2005 as contained in Annexure 1 and also that of respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioner's case is that after the bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand under the provisions of the Bihar Reorganization Act, the petitioner has been allotted Jharkhand State Cadre, and thus he belongs to the cadre of Jharkhand Education Service, Class I. The petitioner's first posting was as the RDDE, Santhal Pargana at Dumka where he had joined on 20th April, 2002. The petitioner was, hereafter, transferred to and posted as OSD, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi on 1.7.2004. The petitioner could not even complete one year as OSD, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi an he surprisingly got another transfer order dated 18.6.2005, whereby he was transferred and posted as Regional Deputy Director, Palamau. Medninagar (Annexure 1). According to him, the petitioner is the President of Jharkhand Education Officers' Association. In a meeting held on 16.4.2005, the respondent No. 3 had publicly abused one member of the Association Mr. Sushil Kumar for filing a writ application before this Court, whereupon his transfer order was stayed and said Sushil Kumar had made complaint to the Association (Annexure 2) and on receipt of the complaint the Association had passed a resolution that no Officer of Education Department will participate in any meeting called by respondent No. 3. The said resolution caused annoyance to the respondent No. 3 and he became hostile to the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 since thereafter tried to humiliate and penalize the petitioner for an incident, which had taken place in 1988 by initiating a second departmental proceeding on the charge earlier inquired into, ultimately exonerating the petitioner of the same. The petitioner challenged the said order of the respondent No. 3 in WP (S) No. 6097/2004 and during pendency of the said application the respondent No. 3 had ordered for re-enquiry by appointing a third Enquiry Officer. The said order was stayed by this Court by order dated 17.1.2005 passed in the said writ application. The respondent No. 3 having failed in his mission got the impugned order of transfer issued only to humiliate and harass the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 before that had also put pressure on the petitioner for appointment of the persons of his choice in Class II and Class IV posts in the departments, which was refused by the petitioner but when the petitioner had gone on leave from 14.6.2005 to 17.6.2005, a contractual appointee was made Incharge in place of the petitioner by order dated 14.6.2005 in order to get the irregular appointments of his men. The petitioner contended that the impugned order of transfer is malicious and vindictive and the same is wholly arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. During the pendency of the writ application, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit alleging therein that appointment of the Secretary of Jharkhand Academic Council cannot be made by way of transfer and no rule and procedure of selection has been followed in appointing the respondent No. 4 as the Secretary of Jharkhand Academic Council in place of the petitioner and that the respondents have no regard for law and the impugned transfer order is a mere device to cover the illegal appointment of respondent No. 4 as the Secretary of the said Council.
3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents; one counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and another on behalf of the respondent No. 3. In both the counter affidavits almost the same stand has been taken. It has been stated that the petitioner was posted as an officer on special duty in Jharkhand Academic Council, where the members of the Jharkhand Teaching and Non-Teaching staff association had made complaint before the Principal Secretary to the Government Department of HRD. The Department has sought for a report from the Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, who had submitted the report with a recommendation for the transfer of the petitioner Jharkhand Academic Council considering the said report, the petitioner was transferred from that post and has been posted as the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau, which is an important post of the cadre of senior scale. It has been stated that the allegations of mala fide against the respondent No. 3 are wild and wholly baseless and that the petitioner himself has deep rooted malice against the respondent No. 3, who has reacted against the valid transfer order, whereby he has been placed on a better post. The petitioner has unnecessarily made the transfer as an issue, although his transfer was recommended by the Chairman of the Jharkhand Academic Council. The respondent No. 3 has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that the order of transfer is nothing to do with WP (S) No. 6097/2004.
4. The petitioner, in reply to the counter affidavit, has reiterated his stand taken in the writ application and has controverted the contrary statements made in the counter affidavit.
5. At the time of hearing of this writ application, learned Counsel for the parties put emphasis on their said respective contentions.
6. From the stand taken by the respective parties, the following facts remain uncontroverted :
(i) The petitioner, having been allotted Jharkhand Cadre, was posted as the RDDE, Santhal Pargana, Dumka in the month of April, 2002.
(ii) The petitioner was then transferred to and posted as OSD, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, where he had joined on 1.7.2004.
(iii) By notification No. 1620, dated 18.6.2005 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, in a chain transfer order, the petitioner was transferred to and posted as the Regional Deputy Director of Education (RDDE), Palamau, Medni Nagar.
(iv) The petitioner aggrieved by the said order of his transfer preferred this writ application.
(v) The said order of transfer was not stayed by this Court rather he was given liberty to join the transferred post subject to the result of this application.
(vi) The petitioner then gave his joining on the transferred post of the RDDE, Palamau during pendency of the writ application and he has been working as such.
(vii) The petitioner has not thereafter amended his writ application for restoration of his post of the OSD, Jharkhand Academic Council by retransferring him from the post of RDD on which he has joined during pendency of the writ application.
(viii) The petitioner is ready and willing for his transfer to any other place but emphatically pressed for quashing the impugned transfer order.
(ix) The petitioner has not brought on record anything to show as to whether the person, who has been transferred in his place, has already joined or the post is still vacant.
7. From perusal of Annexure 1, it appears that by the said Notification No. 1620, dated 18.6.2005 as many as 25 officers have been transferred and posted in a chain from one post to the other and the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 6 in the said order, issued by the order of the Governor and the officers have been asked to join the transferred post within a period of one week from the date of the order.
8. In view of above, the officers must have joined the transferred post including the respondent No. 4. The petitioner has also preferred to joint the transferred post, when he was given liberty by this Court.
9. Since the said transfer orders have already been given effect to only by quashing the said transfer order of the petitioner will leave the petitioner nowhere without any relief of retransfer to the vacant post and any declaration of this Court or only quashing of the transfer order will not serve any useful purpose.
10. Though it appears that by Annexure 1 the petitioner has been transferred to the post of OSD, where he was posted just about a year ago, which should not normally be done, as frequent transfers cause inconvenience to the officer concerned and this is not a healthy practice, yet in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, setting aside the impugned transfer of the petitioner will not serve any purpose as aforesaid. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing for further to any other place or post if the instant order is quashed. The said stand goes to show that the petitioner has unnecessarily made the instant transfer as an issue, which cannot be said to be a fair attitude of a public officer holding a responsible post.
11. For the reason, aforementioned, I find no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.