Ayub Khan vs State of Rajasthan and Others

By way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.12.2010, whereby the Petitioner has been transferred from Bakani to Ghatol; order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (here-in-after to be referred to as ''Tribunal); and the order dated 23.3.2011, whereby the representation given by the Petitioner in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, has been rejected.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is noticed that albeit vide order dated 29.12.2010, the Petitioner was transferred from Bakani to Ghatol, but since no TA and joining time was allowed to him, he preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (9) SCC 583, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Kaurav reported in 1995 (3) SCC 1056 and disposed of the appeal as well as the stay application with the direction to the Petitioner to submit a representation before the Respondent-Department and the Respondent-Department was in-turn directed to decide the representation. In pursuance of the directions of the learned Tribunal, the Petitioner is found to have filed a representation and the Department is also found to have considered the same. The Department vide order dated 23.3.2011, having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, decided the representation of the Petitioner.

It is further noticed that the Petitioner was transferred on a vacant post. It goes to show that he was transferred in the public interest/administrative exigency as the post was lying vacant.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Bhagwan Das Mittal and 207 Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2007 (2) WLC (Raj.) 775; and the judgment rendered by Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Champa Lal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2006 (1) WLC (Raj.) 212 and contended that in the light of the aforesaid judgments, the impugned orders deserve to be set-aside.

Conversely, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, has held that the courts should not interfere with the transfer orders, which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide.

In the case reported in 2006 (9) SCC 583, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that, "it is the duty of the employee to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed."

In the instant case, the Petitioner instead of reporting the duty at the new place of posting, is found to have indulged in litigation by invoking the jurisdiction of one forum or the other. If he had any grievance, he ought to have first joined the duty and thereafter submitted the representation before the Respondents imploring them to consider the same sympathetically, but he has failed to do so. Keeping in view the judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court, the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner render no assistance to him.

In view of above, the impugned orders are found to be just and apt. They do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has utterly failed to make out a case in his favour that he has been transferred out of vengeance or with malafide. The Petitioner has no case to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.