Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 October, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5770 of 2024
----------
1.Manoj Kumar, aged about 42 years, Son of Kanni Lal Ram, R/o AT
Ambedkar Nagar, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Gumla
2.Krishna Singh, aged about 51 years, Son of Late Ram Kumar Singh, R/o
Village-Ome, P.O., P.S.-Keredari & Dist.-Hazaribagh
3.Binod Kumar, aged about 56 years, son of Late Dharnidhar Singh, R/o
Village-Harigaon (Shantinagar), P.O. Saneya Barhata, P.S. Jagdishpur &
Dist.-Bhojpur (Bihar), PIN-802162
4.Lalit Prasad Manohar, aged about 48 years, Son of Late K. Mahto, R/o At
Baruatand, P.O. Tupkadih P.S.-Balidih & Dist.-Bokaro
5.Niraj Baraik, aged about 42 years, Son of Ram Sundar Malua, R/o Village-
Samtoli, P.O. Gotra, P.S.-Simdega & Dist.-Simdega
6.Alka Lakra, aged about 51 years, Daughter of Henry Lakra, R/o Jawahar
Nagar, Mango, P.O. Azad Nagar, P.S.-Mango & Dist.-East Singhbhum
7.Vinay Jayaswal, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Harihar Prasad
Jayaswal, R/o Main Road, Khunti, P.O., P.S.-Khunti & Dist.-Khunti
8.Hari Oraon, aged about 53 years, Son of Late Kailabudhu Oraon, R/o
Village-Badri, P.O., P.S. Chanho & Dist.-Ranchi
............ Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government
of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan & Dist.-Ranchi
3.The Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, State Executive Committee,
Jharkhand Education Project Council, having its office at JSCA Stadium
Road, Sector III, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & Dist.-Ranchi
4.The State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, having
its office at JSCA Stadium Road, Sector-III, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & Dist.-
Ranchi
5.Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Education Project Council, having its
office at JSCA Stadium Road, Sector-III, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & Dist.-Ranchi
............ Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II
Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
----------
03/ 24.10.2024 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by order of transfer dated 12.09.2024
issued under the pen and signature of State Project Director. Further
prayer has been made for payment of salary equivalent to similarly
situated employees working in the State Government as per the Rules.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners finding themselves
eligible and fulfilling the requisite criteria, applied for appointment to
various posts of Assistant Program Officer, Additional District
Programme Officer, Assistant Resources Person and Teacher on
contractual basis. Upon being selected, they gave their joining in the
different districts of the State of Jharkhand on different dates. After their
joining they were discharging their duties sincerely and to the utmost
satisfaction of the respondent-State. It is the case of petitioners that the
Jharkhand Education Project Council vide order dated 12.09.2024 took
a decision to transfer the employees in light of letter dated 31.07.2024
of the Election Commission of India and the decision taken in the 53 rd
State Executive Meeting dated 25.03.2019, in which it has been
resolved that any officer/ employee can serve for a maximum period of
six years at the block level and three years at the district level. The
petitioners being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent-JEPC
have preferred in the present writ petitions.
4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
vociferously argues that no order can be passed dehors the rules.
Assailing the impugned order it has been argued that without
consultation with the State Government or the Central Government, the
Rules have been amended and the respondents, in view of the Amended
Rules, have transferred the petitioners which is not tenable in the eyes of
law. Further, it has been argued that as per Rule-44(3)(ka) of Jharkhand
Education Project Council Rules, petitioners are entitled for salary
equivalent to the State Employees which have neither been considered
nor paid to the petitioners. Further, it has been argued that in view of
guidelines of the Election Commission, the transfer order has been
issued. However, from perusal of said guidelines nowhere it transpires
that a direction has been given by the Election Commission to transfer
the petitioners. Referring to several clause of the Rules namely, Rules-5,
5.1 and 5.2 it has been submitted that these clauses did not govern the
petitioners and as such, they ought not to have been transferred to a
different place. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court by
learned senior counsel for the petitioners that even no objection has
been invited from the petitioners before passing of the order of transfer
and as such, it can comfortably be inferred that entire order is dehors the
Rules. Further, it has been argued that since petitioners have already
joined the transferred post though with protest, the respondents may be
directed to take a decision on the representations of the petitioners in
view of the rules and guidelines of the Election Commission.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the
respondent-JEPC opposing the contention of learned senior counsel for
the petitioners justifies the impugned order and submits that everything
has been done as per the Rules. To buttress his arguments learned
counsel places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as of this Court particularly in case of LPA No. 10 of 2021 and
submits that Election Commission's guidelines are not to be interfered
by the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned
counsel submits that if any guidelines have been framed, the same is in
the interest of State Government as well as Central Government and the
same has to be followed in toto. Learned counsel submits that since the
petitioners have joined the transferred post, if they file fresh
representation the same shall be considered in accordance with law,
rules and guidelines and suitable order shall be passed within a
stipulated period of time.
6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is
of the view that since transfer order has already been given effect, to the
same cannot be interfered with. Transfer is an incidence of service.
Employee has no right to continue at a particular place for long years.
However, the transfer order can be interfered with if it is without
jurisdiction and against the statutory provisions or malafide and punitive
in nature. Nowhere it is reflected that the order is against the spirit of the
guidelines. However, since guidelines have been framed and amended
rules have been made, it is expected from the respondents to consider
the same before issuance of any order of transfer.
7. Accordingly, I hereby direct the petitioners to file fresh
representations annexing all the relevant documents on which they are
relying upon, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and after receiving the same alongwith the copy of
this order, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with
law and after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
pass a speaking and reasoned order taking into account the prevalent
rules, guidelines and circulars, within a further period of three weeks,
which shall also be communicated to the petitioners. Respondents shall
also consider the salary for which the petitioners are entitled for as per
their claim seeking parity with the State employees.
8. Needless to say that if the decision is taken in favour of the
petitioners, the benefits as prayed for in the instant writ petitions shall
be extended to them within a further period of three weeks.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions both the writ petitions
stand disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Rohit/-
