2025:JHHC:12079-DB -1 of 4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 32 of 2019 Amit Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Late Umesh Prasad Srivastava, resident of near Ashok Timber, Main Road, Jodhadih More, P.O. Chas, P.S. Chas, Town & District Bokaro (Jharkhand). … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Chief Engineer (Traffic), Road Construction Department, at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle, Government of Jharkhand, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District – Bokaro. … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Md. Mohan Kumar Dubey, A.C. to A.G. --------- 04/Dated: 23.04.2025 M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral) 1. This review application is filed seeking review of the judgment dt. 08.01.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 607 of 2017. The applicant in the review application had been engaged as a Correspondence Clerk in the Road Construction Department on compassionate grounds on the death of his father while in service. His engagement commenced in 2002 as a Correspondence Clerk. 2025:JHHC:12079-DB -2 of 4- 2. On 24.02.2009 he was posted as Accounts Clerk having the same scale of pay. On 31.12.2009 the order posting the petitioner as Accounts Clerk was cancelled and he was posted back as Correspondence Clerk on the ground that the petitioner’s posting as Accounts Clerk was irregular and not in conformity with the rules. 3. The review petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.(S) No. 460 of 2010. On 02.08.2017 the said Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the pretext that the rules do not permit for review of an order by the same authority. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the privy council in R.T. Rangachari Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council, 1937 0 AIR (PC) 27 wherein the privy council is said to have held that in a case in which after Government Officials duly competent and duly authorized in that behalf have arrived honestly to one decision, their successors in office, after the decision has been acted upon and is in effective operation, cannot reconsider the matter and arrive at a different decision. 4. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the State Government before a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 607 of 2017. The Division Bench disagreed with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, allowed the appeal and dismissed the Writ Petition. The Division Bench had agreed with the contention of the State that there cannot be a change of cadre of a person appointed on compassionate ground and also took note of the fact that the officer, who directed the initial change of cadre, was issued a show cause notice. The Division Bench held that no legal right was vested in the petitioner on the basis of which his reversion could be challenged invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the 2025:JHHC:12079-DB -3 of 4- High Court; an employee does not have any vested legal right barring that specified in the applicable rules to hold onto a particular post in a particular cadre; no prejudice was demonstrated by the reversion of the writ petitioner to the original post; and the decision of the administrative authority, in the absence of any adverse civil consequence, should not be interfered with by the Writ Court. 5. Assailing the same, this review petition is filed. 6. Counsel for the review petitioner placed reliance on Rule 56 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which states as under: “56. (a) The State Government may transfer a Government servant from one post to another: Provided that, except :- (1) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or (2) on his written request, a Government servant shall not be transferred substantively to, or except in a case covered by Rule 103 appointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the pay of the permanent post on which he holds a lien, or would hold a lien, had his lien not been suspended under Rule 70. (b) Nothing contained in clause (a) of this rule or in Rule 28, shall operate to prevent the re-transfer of a Government servant to the post on which he would hold a lien, has it not been suspended in accordance with the provisions of Clause (a) of Rule 70.” 7. He contended that since the petitioner was transferred from the post of Correspondence Clerk to the post of Accounts Clerk on his written request, the same cannot be undone because the Rule does not permit it. 8. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that the cadre of Correspondence Clerk and the cadre of Accounts Clerk are different and channels of promotion from both these posts are different. The post of 2025:JHHC:12079-DB -4 of 4- Accounts Clerk is not in the channel of promotion from the post of Correspondence Clerk. When the Rule did not permit the posting of the petitioner, who was appointed as a Correspondence Clerk, as an Accounts Clerk, it cannot be said that the respondents had committed any error in undoing the mistake which they had done by posting the petitioner as an Accounts Clerk, when his appointment was that of a Correspondence Clerk. 9. Rule 56 quoted by the review petitioner’s counsel, in our opinion, applies only to a case of transfer from one post to another post in the same cadre. The word ‘transfer’ used in Rule 56 cannot be interpreted as permitting posting of a person appointed to post A for posting him in a different cadre in post B. 10. The view that an administrative decision cannot be reconsidered later and undone is no longer the correct view and even policy decisions can be undone. If the decision taken for posting the petitioner as an Accounts Clerk, when he was appointed only as a Correspondence Clerk, is not permitted by the Rules, merely because the decision at that time was taken honestly, nothing prevents the successors to undo the mistake. Therefore, we do not find any error in the judgment of the Division Bench warranting interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) APK/VK