Interference by MLAs/MLCs in the transfers/postings of officers is improper and amounts to abdication of executive power and interference with the functioning of the government.

S. N. Jha, J.

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notification No.12790 contained in memo No.12804 dated december 31, 1996 of Ihe Rural development Department. By the said notification respondent No.3 Raj Nan-dan Choudhary has been posted as block Development Officer (BDO), As-thawan (District Nalanda) on transfer from Sonapur (District Saran), and the posting of the petitioner as BDO, As-thawan made earlier by notification No.12369 dated December 19, 1996 has been cancelled. Both the petitioner and respondent No.3 are members of the bihar Administrative Service. On deputation they are in the Rural development Department.

2. The validity of the impugned order of transfer/posting has been questioned on the ground that the petitioner having joined Asthawan pursuant to the notification dated December 19, 19%, his posting could not be cancelled, much less at the instance of an MLA It is said that the transfer/posting of officers within such a short span without any reason should be struck down as being against public interest as also in the interest of the Service. Copy of the letter of the MLA which is said to be the basis of issuance of the impugned notification has been brought on record as Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

3. The grievance of the petitioner was noted on February 11, 1997 when notice was issued to respondent No.3 and the operation of the impugned notification was stayed till further orders. When the case was taken up after service of notice on the respondent on april 22, 1997, in the facts and circumstances of the case the State Counsel was directed to produce the entire records pertaining to the transfer/posting of BDO. s. in different Blocks of the state by various notifications as contained in memo No.12374 dated december 19, 19% and memo No.12804 dated, December, 31,19%. It may be stated here that according to the petitioner, out of 255 persons transferred by various notifications on december 19, 19%, 54 of them were disturbed, that is to say, again transferred on December 31, 19%, that is within 12 days, for extraneous consideration, at the instance of local mlas. As a matter of fact, according to the counsel, most of those transfers/posting had been made at the instance of the Legislators.

4. When these submissions to the above effect were made it looked as if the counsel was overstating his case. Having gone through the original files, it rather seems that what was stated on behalf of the petitioner was only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. It appears that almost all the aforesaid transfers/posting have been made on the basis of the so-called recommendation of the local Legislators. At one stage I was inclined to mention the names of the Legislators. But I later realised that if I were to mention the names of all such MLAs/mlcs, this order would virtually become a Directory of names. In fact, the three folder files consisting of 755 sheets mostly contain the letters of the Legislators, some of whom have made recommendation more than once and addressed them to the Chief Minister, Minister-in-charge and so on. It was distressing to find that in many of such letters, the concerned MLA/mlc had openly stated that so and so belongs to a particular caste and, therefore, he may be posted at a particular place. As a matter of fact, in Annexure 7 itself as regards respondent No.3 it has been stated that. he belongs to social justice category while the petitioner does not belong to that category and, therefore, he (respondent No.3) should be posted.

5. The question as to whether the members of the Legislative Assembly/council can interfere with the transfers/posting of officers has come up for consideration before this Court on various occasions. There are at least three reported cases which I proposed to refer in this order. In Ramakant choudhary V/s. State of Bihar, [1975 (2)SLR 67], having considered the matter in details this Court observed,

"if I ware to allow the order passed by the Administrator