S.Sarwar Ali, J.

1. In this writ the petitioner prays for quashing of Annexure-4, a notification dated 13th June, 1981 transferring the petitioner from Ranchi to Monghyr as the District Transport Officer.

2. The petitioner joined the Bihar Civil Service as Probationer Deputy Collector in 1975. While the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Nirsa, in the district of Dhanbad, his services were placed at the disposal of the Transport Department and he was posted as District Transport Officer, Ranchi. This post he joined on 16th February, 1979. On 6th December, 1980 by a notification, copy whereof is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, the petitioners services were returned to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. The wife of the petitioner filed a representation before the Government pointing out numerous inconveniences and difficulties which will result on account of the order dated 6th December, 1980. By order dated 23rd December, 1980, the Government stayed the order contained in Annexure-4 for six months so far as the petitioner was concerned. By the same Annexure respondent No. 5 had been posted as the District Transport Officer at Ranchi in place of the petitioner. Respondent No. 5 claims that in pursuance of the said order he joined the post on 9th December, 1980 and assumed charge on 15th December, 1980 and worked in that capacity till 23rd December, 1980. Although there was stay of Annexure-4 so far as the petitioner was concerned for a period of six months, no specific order was passed in relation to respondent No. 5. On 13th June, 1981 the impugned Annexure-4 was issued whereby the petitioner was transferred to Monghyr as District Transport Officer. This writ application was filed on 16th June, 1981 and an order of status quo was passed on 18th June, 1981. Respondent No. 5, however, claims that he joined and assumed the charge of the office of the District Transport Officer, Ranchi, on 16th June, 1981 under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

3. The order contained in Annexure-4 is assailed on the ground that the order of transfer in question is contrary to the policy and procedure laid down for transfers and posting of Government employees in Bihar under Annex-ure-5 dated 1st November, 1980. The said Annexure, which is mandatory in nature, requires that no transfer should be made without obtaining recommendation of the Establishment Committee. This admittedly has not been done in the instant case. The order of transfer is, therefore, invalid and cannot be given effect to.

4. Since the respondents have accepted that there was no consultation with the Establishment Committee before the impugned order was passed, the main questions that will have to be decided in this case are (a) whether Annexure-5 is mandatory or it is only directory; (b) whether in all cases of transfer it is necessary that recommendation of the Establishment Committee should be obtained.

5. In relation to transfer of Government servants some executive instructions of general application were issued earlier. But they, it appears, were not thought to be exhaustive. Some of the departments of the Government had also issued some executive instructions applicable to their own departments. The Government, therefore, decided to issue a comprehensive instruction dealing with both the policy as also the procedure that should be followed while making transfers of Government servants in the State of Bihar. Of course, the departments concerned could and, in fact in some cases did issue separate general policy direction restricted to their own departments in conformity with the general policy laid down. It has to be appreciated that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not conducive to good administration. It sometimes creates vested interests. That is why we find that from the time of British