High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Brinda Prasad Sah vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 20 April, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Brinda Prasad Sah vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 20 April, 2011
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                                CWJC No.3397 of 2009
                BRINDA PRASAD SAH SON OF LATE BANARSI SAH, RESIDENT OF
                VILLAGE AND P.O.- GAJAS, P.S. SARAIYA (JAITPUR O.P.) DISTRICT-
                MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT POSTED AT VAISHALI BLOCK, AS A
                B.E.O. DISTRICT- VAISHALI.
                                                                           ... PETITIONER.
                                                         Versus
                1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH SPECIAL SECRETARY-CUM-
                    DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA.
                2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI,
                    HAJIPUR.
                3. AWADHESH PRASAD THAKUR, B.E.O. VAISHALI (EAST), BELSAR
                    BLOCK, VAISHALI.
                                                                       .. RESPONDENTS.
                For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
                For the State: M/s. Anjani Kumar, AAG-10 and Sanjay kumar, AC to AAG-10.
                                                       -----------

3. 20.04.2011 Heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from

Annexures-1, 2, 3 and 4 that the petitioner has been repeatedly

posted from the post of Block Education Extension Officer, Vaishali

(West) to the post of Block Education Extension Officer, Pirauta,

Bhojpur, Vaishali and back. The fact remains that the petitioner

remains posted in the district of Vaishali itself and he has only been

shifted from one Block to another Block in a chain of transfers.

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been

victimized or any prejudice has been caused to him due to his

frequent transfers which naturally became necessary because of the

chain of transfers effected by the respondents.

This Court does not find any merit in the writ petitioner,

which is dismissed.

 Ibrar/-                                                             ( Jayanandan Singh, J.)