Case Background
The case arose from a dispute over the transfer of a government pharmacist working under the Health Department in Bihar.
The petitioner was posted as a Pharmacist at Jagdishpur, Ara. On 26.06.2019, the Regional Deputy Director, Patna Division, Health Services, Patna, issued a transfer order shifting him to Danapur. This transfer was within the same division.
Later, on 23.01.2020, the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna, issued Letter No. 102(4). By this letter, the Director-in-Chief cancelled the petitioner’s transfer order dated 26.06.2019. The main ground taken was that the Regional Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner.
The petitioner felt aggrieved by this cancellation order. He approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction seeking to set aside the order dated 23.01.2020 and to restore the transfer order dated 26.06.2019.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri, heard both sides. The main question was simple but important for government employees: who has the legal authority to transfer a pharmacist within a division in the Health Department of Bihar.
The petitioner’s side argued that the Regional Deputy Director is the competent authority to transfer Class-III employees, including pharmacists, within the division. For this, they relied on two departmental documents.
First, they referred to Memo No. 612(4) dated 28.03.2011. According to them, this memo delegated the power of transfer of Class-II employees to the Regional Deputy Director. Second, they referred to Resolution/Memo No. 658(3) dated 05.10.2006. This resolution, they said, clearly gave the Regional Deputy Director power to make inter-district transfers within the division for Class-III employees.
The petitioner was working as a Pharmacist, which is a Class-III post. His transfer from Jagdishpur, Ara to Danapur on 26.06.2019 was within Patna Division. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Regional Deputy Director had valid jurisdiction to transfer him under the 05.10.2006 executive order.
The petitioner further contended that the Director-in-Chief had no authority to cancel the transfer order that had been lawfully issued by the Regional Deputy Director. In other words, once the power to transfer Class-III employees within a division had been delegated to the Regional Deputy Director, the Director-in-Chief could not simply declare the transfer illegal and cancel it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
On the other side, the State opposed the petition. The State’s counsel pointed out that pharmacists are governed by specific rules called the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014. Under these rules, the appointing authority for pharmacists is the Director-in-Chief (Health Services), Bihar.
The State argued that, in view of these 2014 Rules, earlier executive orders like the one dated 05.10.2006, which empowered the Regional Deputy Director to transfer Class-III employees, stood nullified. They relied on Rule 22 of the 2014 Rules to support this stand. On this basis, it was contended that only the Director-in-Chief was now competent to effect transfer of pharmacists, and thus the Regional Deputy Director’s transfer order dated 26.06.2019 was without authority.
The Court carefully considered these rival submissions. It first noted that the core of the dispute was about who is the competent authority for transfer: the Director-in-Chief or the Regional Deputy Director, when the transfer is within a division.
The Court recorded that the petitioner had in fact been shifted from Jagdishpur, Ara to Danapur on 26.06.2019 by the Regional Deputy Director in terms of the executive order dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure-1). This order permitted transfers of such employees within a division.
The Court then examined the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014. It observed that these rules govern the Pharmacist Cadre. However, on perusal of the Rules, it found that there is no definition of “transfer” under Rule 2.
From this, the Court drew the inference that the 2014 Rules do not deal with transfer of pharmacists. Instead, the rules mainly concern appointment to the posts in the Pharmacist Cadre. Thus, the source of power for transfer of pharmacists did not come from the 2014 Rules.
Instead, the only source of power for transfer of pharmacists within a division was the executive order dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure-1). This executive order had delegated to the Regional Deputy Director the power to transfer Class-III employees within the division.
In this light, the Court rejected the State’s argument based on Rule 22 of the 2014 Rules. The Court held that the 2014 Rules do not override the executive order regarding transfer. Rule 22 could not be used to nullify the executive order dated 05.10.2006 because the Rules themselves do not govern the subject of transfer of pharmacists.
The Court stated clearly that the contention of the respondents that the Director-in-Chief alone is competent to transfer pharmacists from one place to another place is not tenable. Since the Rules were about appointment and not transfer, the executive order delegating transfer powers remained valid.
Based on this reasoning, the Court concluded that the Regional Deputy Director was indeed the competent authority to transfer the petitioner within the division on 26.06.2019. Therefore, the Director-in-Chief’s order dated 23.01.2020, which cancelled the petitioner’s transfer by holding that the Regional Deputy Director lacked jurisdiction, was without authority of law.
In the final analysis, the Court found that the petitioner had made out a case for interference. It set aside the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure-7) passed by the Director-in-Chief (Health Services).
The Court further directed that the original transfer order dated 26.06.2019 be given effect in accordance with law at the earliest. With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for pharmacists and other Class-III employees working under the Health Department in Bihar.
First, it clarifies that the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014, mainly deal with appointment, not transfer. Where the rules are silent on transfer, existing executive orders on transfer continue to apply.
Second, it confirms that, as per the executive order dated 05.10.2006, the Regional Deputy Director has valid power to transfer Class-III employees, including pharmacists, within a division. Higher authorities cannot simply ignore this delegation and cancel a lawful transfer order saying the Regional Deputy Director has no jurisdiction.
Third, for government employees, the case shows that transfer orders can be challenged when they are cancelled or changed without proper legal authority. The Court looked at who actually had the power, not just at the rank of the officer.
For administrators, the decision is a reminder that cadre rules and executive orders must be read carefully. If cadre rules do not cover a particular area, existing executive instructions on that area remain in force and cannot be brushed aside.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether, after the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014, the Regional Deputy Director retained the power to transfer a pharmacist (a Class-III employee) within a division, or whether only the Director-in-Chief could do so.
Answer: The Patna High Court held that the 2014 Rules relate to appointment and do not govern transfer. The executive order dated 05.10.2006 continues to apply, so the Regional Deputy Director is competent to transfer pharmacists within a division, and the Director-in-Chief’s cancellation of such a transfer was invalid.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely on any other cited cases.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3680 of 2020
Case Title: Ravindra Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 312
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Mohit Srivastava, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. S. D. Yadav, AAG-IX; Mr. Nagendra Kumar, AC to AAG-IX
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging cancellation of transfer order of a government pharmacist in the Health Department.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMzY4MCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-1RFXHXiWaTI=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
