Jharkhand High Court
Sujit Rajak Son Of Shri Shobhi ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 21 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1228 of 2022
----
Sujit Rajak son of Shri Shobhi Dhobi, resident of Raja Bangla, Juria Road,
PO PS District Lohardaga.
... Petitioner
-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 : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to AAG II
----
4/ 21.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. Petitioner herein, prays for quashing the office order contained in
Memo No.323 dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), whereby
transfer order of the petitioner was cancelled. Petitioner has also challenged
the consequential order as contained in memo No. 185/Lohardaga dated
26.02.2022, whereby the petitioner was directed to join his previous school
with a direction to the concerned authority to relieve the petitioner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
transferred vide order contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition and he was
relieved to join his transferred place and he is drawing his salary from his
transferred place where he has joined pursuant to his transfer order. He
submits that suddenly vide office order contained in Memo No.323 dated
22.02.2022, his transfer order was cancelled and he was directed to join his
original place 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
petitioner was made against the guidelines and the policy, thus, his transfer
order was cancelled.
5. From the documents it appears that petitioner was an Assistant
Teacher. He was transferred from Government Middle School, Juria,
Lohardaga to Government Primary School, Juria, Karamtoli, Lohardaga by
office order contained in Memo No.1092/Lohardaga dated 28.09.2021. This
transfer order has been brought on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
Petitioner was relieved to join his transferred place of posting. The relieving
order is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 2.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner joined his transferred place of posting
and was 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
order of the petitioner was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to join his
previous place 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
petitioner had joined his place of transfer and after his joining, his transfer
order was 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
order of the petitioner was cancelled and the consequential order as contained
in memo No. 185/Lohardaga dated 26.02.2022, whereby the petitioner was
directed to join his previous school with a direction to the concerned authority
to relieve the petitioner, is 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
