This Court held that an order of transfer, once issued and acted upon, becomes spent force and cannot be cancelled. The impugned cancellation order was quashed and the writ application allowed.
The impugned order dated 17.12.2008 cancelling the earlier transfer order was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.794 of 2009
SHYAMA NAND MANDAL
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
The petitioner was transferred by order dated 30.6.2008 from Nawadah to Purnea. He is stated to have joined the transferred place of posting on 7.7.2008. After he joined his new post the original order of transfer has been cancelled on 17.12.2008.
This aspect of the matter stands settled by two Bench decisions of this Court reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 332 (Smt. Jyotsna Kumari Vs The State of Bihar & ors. ) and 2000 (3) PLJR 139 (Mahmood Azam vs. The State of Bihar & ors.) holding that an order of transfer once issued and acted upon becomes a spent force and is redundant. Thereafter no order of transfer survives for annulment or cancellation.
The impugned order of cancellation dated 17.12.2008 is accordingly quashed. The writ application stands allowed.
This shall however be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to deal with the petitioner on the issue of transfer and posting in accordance with law.
Snkumar/-
(Navin Sinha,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order of transfer once issued and acted upon can be cancelled.
Whether the cancellation order dated 17.12.2008 is valid.
Shyama Mandal
The State of Bihar
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court