Patna High Court
Abhishek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that it will not interfere with the administrative transfer but allowed the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhishek Kumar, challenged two orders that transferred him from his position as Office Attendant in Circle Office, Kanti to the District Confidential Section, Muzaffarpur, alleging that the deputation was made without any justification or consideration of his hardship. He sought to set aside the transfer order and the subsequent release order, and requested that the authorities consider his case sympathetically. The State argued that the transfer was an administrative decision taken on account of exigencies and submitted a counter‑affidavit. The Patna High Court, while refraining from adjudicating the merits, granted the petitioner liberty to file a representation before the competent authority within 30 days and directed that the authority decide the representation within 90 days. The Court emphasized that transfer is a matter of service and primarily within the employer's domain, and therefore it did not interfere with the order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any substantive order on the merits.
Issues considered
- The legality of the transfer/deputation order issued without stated reasons.
- Whether the court can intervene in an administrative service transfer on grounds of arbitrariness.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief setting aside the transfer order.
Subjects
- transfer of service
- administrative discretion
- writ petition
- service law
- representation
- district magistrate
- employment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8300 of 2025
======================================================
Abhishek Kumar son of Late Ajay Prasad, Resident of Village Laskaripur,
Post Kalwari, P.S. Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur 843108.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
2. District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur
3. Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur
4. Special Officer on duty, District Confidential Section, Muzaffarpur
5. Deputy Collector (Establishment), Muzaffarpur
6. Subdivisional Officer (West) Muzaffarpur.
7. Circle Officer, Circle Office Kanti, Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Addl. Advocate General (09)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with
the following relief/s :-
“(i) For setting aside the Order
contained in Memo No.569 dated
01.04.2025 (Annexure-P/4) issued under the
seal and signature of the Deputy Collector
(Establishment), Muzaffarpur whereby the
Petitioner has been put on deputation to the
District Confidential Section, Muzaffarpur
from Circle Office, Kanti where he was
working as Office Attendant and also for
quashing the Office Order contained in
Memo No.867 dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure-
P/5) issued by the Circle Officer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8300 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
2/3
Kantiwhereby the Petitioner has been
released from the Circle Office, in haste,
without considering the difficulty of the
Petitioner and without assigning reasons
and requirement for such deputation.
(ii) For direction upon the
Respondent to consider the case of the
Petitioner sympathetically under the facts
and circumstances of the case mentioned
herein. below, more so, where there was no
exigency for such deputation of the
Petitioner to the District Confidential
Section, Muzaffarpur from Circle Office,
Kanti where the Petitioner was discharging
his duty to the satisfaction of one and all
and there is / was no adverse entry against
the Petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that
a counter affidavit has been filed. It is further submitted that the
impugned transfer order is an administrative decision taken by
the respondent authorities on account of administrative
exigencies.
4. This Court, without entering into the merits and
demerits of the case, grants liberty to the petitioner to file a
representation before the competent authority within a period of
30 days from today, if so advised. In the event such a
representation is filed, the concerned authority shall consider
and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within a period
of 90 days thereafter.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8300 of 2025 dt.21-04-2026
3/3
5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case, as transfer is an incidence of
service and primarily within the domain of the employer.
However, if the petitioner raises any grievance, it shall be open
to the authority to consider the same sympathetically, in
accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
present writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…