JUDGMENT
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
1. This application has been filed for quashing a portion of the notification dated 25-9-2000 (Annexure-6) whereby the petitioner, who was the Medical Officer, Additional Primary Health Centre, Nagarnausa in the District of Nalanda has been transferred to the Primary Health Centre, Durgavati in the District of Kaimoor. Further prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 21-1-2001 (Annexure-17) whereby the representation filed against the order of transfer has been rejected.
2. It seems that in pursuance of the observation made by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4036 of 1999 (Ram Prakash Kuswaha v. State of Bihar and Ors.) a large number of medical officers, including the petitioner posted in a district for more than than 10 years on 30th of June, 2000 or more were transferred by notification dated 25th of September, 2000 (Annexure-G). Petitioner was transferred from Additional Primary Halth Centre, Nagar Nousa in the District of Nalanda to the Primary Health Centre, Durgavati in the District of Kaimoor. Petitioner challenged the said order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 12339 of 2000 (Dr. Nawal Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) and a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 1-12-2000 (Annexure-7) disposed of the writ application giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation against the order of transfer with a further direction to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department of Halth to dispose of the representation within a period of one month from the date of communication of a copy of that order. While disposing, of the writ application this Court further observed that if the petitioner has not been relieved from his post, then he may not be relieved till his representation is disposed of. Later on by letter dated 4th of April, 2002 (Annexure-13) of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department of Health, petitioner was informed that his representation has already been disposed of on 20-1-2001 and accordingly the petitioner was directed to join at the transferred place. In the said letter the petitioner was further asked to explain as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against
him for stating falsely that his representation was not disposed of.
3. Petitioner assailed the said order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6828 of 2002 (Dr. Nawal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.) inter alia contending that in fact the communication disposing of the representation by order dated 20th of January, 2001 was never served. His grievance in the said writ application was that the direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12339 of 2000 for disposal of the representation on merit has not been carried out in its true sense and terms. In the said writ application the order dated 20-1-2001 (Annexure-17) herein was placed on record and it was contended that necessary order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner also pleaded before this Court that he is not in a position to move from the present place of posting to the transferred place. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 28-8-2002 (Annexure-16) dismissal the writ application in the following words :
“Learned Counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner is not in a position to move from the present place of posting to the transferred place. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
my opinion, no interference is required from this end, this application is accordingly dismissed”.
4. Various submissions have been made by Sri Anil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to assail the order of transfer dated 25-9-2000 and the order dated 20-1-2001 (Annexure-17) by which the request made by the petitioner in the representation has not been acceded to. He submits that the decision of this Court dated 28-8-2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6828 of 2002 shall not operate as res-judiciata and in support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arati Ray Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors., (AIR 1974 SC 532).
5.1 am afraid, I cannot go into the validity of the order dated 25th of September, 2000 (Annexure-6) and the order dated 20th of January, 2001 (Annexure-17) in the present proceeding and the authority relied on has no application in the facts of the present case. As stated earlier, petitioner challenged the notification dated 25th of September, 2000 in a writ application which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 12339 of 2000. Said writ application was disposed of by order dated 1-12-2000 giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation against the order of transfer and direction to the authority to dispose of the representation. Thereafter, the petitioner by communicated dated 4th of April, 2002 (Annexure-13) was informed about the disposal of the representation by order dated 20-1-2001 (Annexure-17) with a further direction to join at the transferred place. Petitioner challenged the said communication in C.W.J.C. No. 6828 of 2002 and in the said writ application the order dated 20th of January, 2001 impugned in the present writ application was placed on record. Considering the aforesaid fact as also the plea of the petitioner that he is not in a position to move to the transferred place, this Court found the case not fit for interference and accordingly dismissed the writ application. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 2001 which was on record of the earlier writ application, nothing prevented him from challenging the same or seeking liberty from this Court to assail the said order. Petitioner did not do either and ultimately this Court did not interfere with order of transfer and dismissed the writ application.
6. In sum and substance, in my opinion, the petitioner intends to assail the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6828 of 2002 in which this Court had clearly observed that no interference is called for in relation to the transfer of the petitioner. I am of the opinion, that going into the validity of the order dated 25th September, 2000 (Annexure-6) and order dated 20th January, 2001 (Annexure-17) shall amount to sitting over the judgment passed earlier which is not permissible in law. In my opinion question is not as to whether earlier order shall operate as res judiciata or not but the real issue is as to whether in a case which in an earlier writ application the orders impugned in the latter writ application is relation to transfer were on record and when this Court did not interfere with those orders will it be expedient to go into the validity of such orders in a later writ application. I am of the considered opinion that this would be against public policy and would open a flood gate where there shall be no finality to any order.
7. I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed in limine.