The petitioners have challenged the order as contained in Memo No. 88 dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure-7) whereby services of the petitioners, who were on deputation to the Transport Department, have been sent back to the parent department.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that while the petitioners were functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police, their services were placed with the Transport Department to be posted as Enforcement Officer, vide order as contained in Memo No. 3169 dated 3.7.2008 (Annexure-1). Pursuant to that, parent department of the petitioners, i.e. Home Department issued a notification as contained in Memo No.166 dated 3.7.2008 by which petitioners were relieved for giving joining in the Transport Department. Accordingly, petitioners no.1 and 2 gave their joining in the Transport Department on 7.7.2008 and 9.7.2008 respectively. After waiting for posting for number of months, the petitioner nO.1 was posted as Enforcement Officer, Ranchi Zone and was also given additional charge of Jamshedpur Zone, vide order as contained in Memo NO.1229 dated 22.11.2008 (Annexure-4). On the same day, the petitioner nO.1 gave his joining by virtue of the said notification issued on 22.11.2008 whereas the petitioner no. 2 joined as Enforcement Officer on 24.11.2008 at Hazaribagh Zone but only after two months, the services of the petitioners were returned to their parent department, vide order as contained in letter no. 88 dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure-7) which has been sought to be quashed.

3. Assailing the said order, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that under the policy with respect to transfer and posting, as notified by the Government on 25.10.1980, as has been annexed as Annexure-8, duration of posting has been stipulated normally for a period of three years and in some cases two years but in complete violation of the said policy petitioners' services were sent back to parent department after two months.

4. Learned counsel by referring to Annexure-9 submitted that Transport Department has also issued letter on 15.6.2001 whereby it has been stipulated that the period of deputation should be initially for two years and if the services is found satisfactory, the tenure can be extended for further two years but the respondents ignoring the policy decision of the Government, transferred the petitioners only after two months of taking over the charge as Enforcement Officer which is quite illegal as transfer of officer is required to be effected on the basis of the set norms or guidelines and that power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrary, mala fide and without there being any reason.

5. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Uttam Kujur vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2008(2) J.C.R. 306 (Jhr.)] holding therein that 'he Government has come up with a transfer policy and has prescribed procedure regulating transfer and posting of its employees and, therefore, if the Government by deviating from the set norms effects the transfer, there should be a valid reason. Thus, in the light of the said policy decision of the Government, the impugned order (Annexure-7) under which the petitioners' services have been returned to their parent department is fit to be set aside.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that the Transport Department which generates revenue is manned by the officers deputed by the Home Department for augmenting the income of the department but when it was found that revenue collection is having downward trend, a decision was taken to return the services of all the persons to the parent department in the interest of the State. The said decision was never objected too by the Home Department, rather the Home Department have already deputed other persons in place of the petitioners, vide notification no. 695 dated 18.2.2009 and that the petitioners had never been deputed with any fixed perio