Jharkhand High Court
Rajshri Bhagat Daughter Of Shri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 21 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1208 of 2022
----
1. Rajshri Bhagat daughter of Shri Ambika Bhagat, resident of Village & PO
Champi, PS Kuru, District Lohardaga.
2. Anupma Lakra wife of Shri Amod Kumar Ray, residing at near Block
Office, Lohardaga.
3. Soniya Kujur daughter of Abnezer Kujur, resident of Village Dumri, PO
Jamgai, PS Bhandra, District Lohardaga.
4. Dipti Ekka daughter of Shri Peter Paul Ekka, resident of Village Kaimo,
Patra Toli, PO PS District Lohardaga.
... Petitioners
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary,
School Education and Literacy Department, Office at MDI Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment
Committee, Office at Pandey Ganpat Roy Bhawan, First Floor,
Collectorate, Lohardaga.
3. District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, Office at Pandey
Ganpat Roy Bhawan, First Floor, Collectorate, Lohardaga.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Ms. Neha Bharadwaj, Advocate
Ms. Sneha Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Akanksha Priya, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Soumya S. Pandey, AC to AAG I
----
4/ 21.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. Petitioners herein, pray for quashing the office order contained in
Memo No.323 dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), whereby
transfer orders of the petitioners were cancelled. Petitioners have also
challenged the consequential order as contained in memo No. 185/Lohardaga
dated 26.02.2022, whereby all the petitioners were directed to join their
previous schools with a direction to the concerned authorities to relieve the
respective petitioners.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that all these petitioners were
transferred vide orders contained in Annexure 1 series to the writ petition and
they were relieved to join their transferred places and all of them are drawing
their salaries from their respective transferred places where they have joined
pursuant to their transfer orders. He submits that suddenly vide office order
contained in Memo No.323 dated 22.02.2022, their transfer orders were
cancelled and they were directed to join their original places of posting. He
submits that once a transfer order has already been given effect to, nothing
remains to cancel or recall.
4. Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the transfer of the
petitioners were made against the guidelines and the policy, thus, their transfer
orders were cancelled.
5. From the documents it appears that petitioner No.1 Rajshri
Bhagat was an Assistant Teacher. She was transferred from Government
Upgraded High School, Badla, Senha to Government Upgraded High School,
Kujra, Lohardaga by office order contained in Memo No.1190/Lohardaga
dated 30.10.2021. Petitioner No.2 Anupma Lakra was transferred from
Government Upgraded High School, Akashi, Bhandra to Government
Kasturba Girls High School, Lohardaga vide office order contained in memo
No.1419/Lo. dated 29.12.2021. Petitioner No.3 Sonia Kujur was also an
Assistant Teacher in Government Upgraded High School, Sithio, Senha. She
was transferred to Government Upgraded High School, Semra, Bhandra vide
office order contained in Memo No.1418/Lo. dated 29.12.2021. Similarly,
petitioner No.4 Dipti Ekka was transferred vide office order contained in Memo
No.1421/Lo. dated 29.12.2021 from Government Upgraded High School,
Vitapi, Bhadra to Government Elementary Upgraded High School, Chiri, Kudu.
All these transfer orders have been brought on record as Annexure 1 series to
the writ petition. All the petitioners were relieved to join their respective
transferred places of posting. These relieving orders are annexed with the writ
petition as Annexure 2 Series.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners joined their respective transferred
places of posting and were drawing salary therefrom. Thereafter vide office
order as contained in memo No.323 dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure 4 to the writ
petition), the transfer orders of all these petitioners were cancelled and the
petitioners were directed to join their previous places of posting. Consequential
order was issued vide Annexure 5, which is also under challenge.
7. From the facts of the case, which are admitted, it is clear that the
petitioners had joined their respective places of transfer and after their joining,
their transfer orders were cancelled. The issue as to whether transfer order,
which has been given effect to, can be cancelled or not has been dealt with in
the case of Dr. Ramchandra Safi versus The State of Bihar & Ors. reported
in 2000 (3) PLJR 139. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as under:-
11. It is a settled law that in the matter of appointment, on
joining, the same stands accepted by the incumbents, but
the appointment letters subsists till the employee
retained in service and gets benefit out of such orders of
appointment.
On the other hand, in the matter of transfer, once
notification is acted upon nothing subsists and the
notification of transfer becomes redundant for all
purposes.
8. Further, similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of
Smt. Jyotsna Kumari versus State of Bihar & Others reported in 2000 (2)
PLJR 332 and in the case of Dilip Kumar Poddar & Others versus State of
Jharkhand & Others reported in 2020 (4) JBCJ 550 (HC).
9. Thus, the issue has now been settled that once a transfer order
has been given effect to and has been complied with, same cannot be
cancelled or recalled. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgments, the memo
No.323 dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) whereby transfer
orders of the petitioners were cancelled and the consequential order as
contained in memo No. 185/Lohardaga dated 26.02.2022, whereby all the
petitioners were directed to join their previous schools with a direction to the
concerned authorities to relieve the respective petitioners, are hereby set
aside. Liberty is reserved with the respondents to pass any fresh order as per
law.
10. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
