JUDGMENT
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order No. 16 dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure-5), whereby the petitioner’s transfer has been sought to be stayed after the order of transfer was implemented and the petitioner joined at the transferred place. It has been stated that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer at Lapung in Regional Engineering Organization, Khunti Division, Ranchi and after completion of three years, he was transferred and posted as Junior Engineer at Karra, whereas respondent No. 6, Kaushal Kumar, who was posted as Junior Engineer at Karra and has also completed three years, has been transferred from Karra to Lapung. The petitioner was relieved from Lapung and joined at the place vacated by respondent No. 6 at Karra and his joining was accepted by the Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Khunti Division by his letter No. 1 dated 2.1.2007. It has been stated that the process of the transfer was complete by joining the petitioner at the transferred place but, in the meanwhile, another notification was issued vide letter No. 16 dated 15.1.2007, whereby the petitioner has been asked to remain at Lapung and the respondent No. 6 has also been asked to remain at Karra.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner had already joined his transferred place at Karra, there is no question of his remaining at Lapung and the impugned order is wholly redundant. The respondent No. 6, who has been transferred and relieved from Karra, also cannot remain at Karra as his transfer order has also taken effect after his joining at Lapung.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied on a decision in the case of Dr. Ramchandra Safi v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 139, in order to fortify his stand. Learned Counsel further relied on another decision in the case of Smt. Jyotsna Kumari v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 332, wherein, it has been held that the transfer once acted upon, there is no question of stay of such transfer. Learned Counsel further referred to an order of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1553 of 2006 (Amarnath Arvind Kumar Diwakar v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) in which it has been held that challenge of transfer order after joining the person, so transferred, is a highhandedness on the part of the officers and the action is wholly malafide. The Chief Secretary, in that order, has been directed to see that in future such type of illegality may not be repeated.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondent stating, inter alia, that there is no malafide on the part of the respondents and that inconvenience of respondent No. 6 has been considered on his representation that he has been studying at Ranchi and as such he has been allowed to remain at the same place at Karra and there is no other consideration and arbitrariness.
5. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6. Mr. A. Allam, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 submitted that this is not a case of malafide and the case of respondent No. 6 has been considered on his representation that it is convenient to him to continue his study from that place as he had to go to Ranchi for that purpose which is nearer to Karra and that there is no question of malafide in staying the transfer orders of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 6. It has been further submitted that in view of the interest of the public also he had been looking after three major works and that the works have not been completed and in the midst of the work, he should not have been transferred from that place. It has been further submitted that this Court should not, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, ordinarily interfere with the order of transfer issued by the respondents and that the order of transfer has been issued looking into the said representation which, inter alia, was filed in view of the pending work and in public interest. Learned Counsel referred to and relied on the decisions in the cases of Ram Prasann Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2005(4) JCR 48 (Jhr); Sushil Kumar Dubey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2004 (4) JCR 497(Jhr.), Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in 2004(3) JCR 231(Jhr.) and James Peter Lakra v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2003(1) JCR 70(Jhr.). In Ram Prasann Singh (supra), this Court held that the High Court should not interfere if there is no violation of rules and statutory provision. In Sushil Kumar Dubey (supra), this Court held that when the transfer order is not given effect to, transfer order can be stayed in the interest of work on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee and the transfer order passed under such circumstance should not be interfered with. In M/s. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(supra), this Court held that transfer is the condition of service and the Court should not ordinarily interfere with such orders. In Jems Peter Lakra (supra), the order of transfer was issued on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee for the purpose of cancellation of such order of transfer, this Court did not find any wrong in the said order.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the materials placed on records and the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that in this case, the petitioner was transferred by order dated 30.12.2006 on completion of three years and, thereafter, he obeyed the order and submitted his joining and it was accepted by the Executive Engineer and thereafter, by the impugned order, he has been asked to remain at Lapung i.e. the place of his previous posting. The order appears to be ridiculous. The petitioner has been relieved on his transfer and, thereafter, he joined the transferred place and his joining was accepted. The process of transfer is complete and there is no question of his remaining at the place from where he has been transferred. The order appears to be issued mechanically and without application of mind. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the distance from Karra to Lapung is 10 Kms. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 6 has disputed the same by saying that the distance is 30 Kms. However, when the alleged inconvenience of respondent No. 6 for his studies at Ranchi was considered, posting of the respondent No. 6 in or around Ranchi could have the proper remedy. Apparently, the same is not the consideration behind the impugned order. I, therefore, find no valid ground or justification for issuing the impugned order. The order asking the petitioner to remain at the earlier place of posting, from where he has already been relieved on transfer and he having joined the transferred place, is per se redundant and nonest. The petitioner cannot be forced to obey such anomalous and illegal order. The impugned order to the extent concerning the petitioner is, hereby, quashed.
7. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.