AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.12.2019, whereby his representation has been rejected.
The facts appertain are brief that by way of order dated 29.09.2019, the petitioner was transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Senthi, NP, Ward No.15, District Chittorgarh to Government Senior Secondary School, Kumbhakheri, District Baran.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner's appeal along with other three appeals came to be disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.10.2019 with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation with a corresponding direction to the respondents to decide the same by way of passing speaking order.
In furtherance of the order dated 15.10.2019, passed by the Tribunal, petitioner submitted his representation dated 22.10.2019, stating the following reasons in support of his request of revocation of the transfer and/or providing posting at nearby vacant post :
"1. राजस्थान सिविल सेवा अपील अधिकरण, चलपीठ जोधपुर के आख्यात्मक आदेश की प्रति।
विद्यालय के गुणात्मक परीक्षा परिणाम से प्राप्त फाईव स्टार रेंकिंग प्राप्त अवार्ड की प्रति।
पत्नी (श्रीमती नरेन्द्र कंवर) के असाध्य न्यूरो रोग ग्रसित का चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र चिकित्सक द्वारा ईलाज की पर्चीयां
पुत्री (सुश्री प्रेणता पंवार) के Broncritis Shiver Asthma बीमारी का प्रमाण पत्र व इलाज पर्चियां
जिलें में रिक्त पदों की सूची
कार्यग्रहण व कार्य मुक्ति आदेश
अच्छे नामांकन वृद्धि"
The petitioner's above referred representation dated 22.10.2019 came to be rejected by the respondent No.2 vide his order dated 20.12.2019. It will not be out of place to reproduce the operative part of the impugned decision, which reads thus :
"अपीलार्थी के अभ्यावेदन का माननीय अधिकरण द्वारा पारित निर्णय तथा राज्य सरकार व विभाग के दिशा-निर्देशों/नियमों/परिपत्रों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में परीक्षण किया गया एवं उनकी मांग पर विचार किया गया। अपीलार्थी राज्य सेवा के अधिकारी हैं और उन्हें राज्य हित/छात्र हित अथवा प्रशासनिक कारणों से राज्य में कहीं पर भी पदस्थापित किया जा सकता है। यह विधि का सुस्थापित सिद्धान्त है कि इच्छित स्थान पर पदस्थापन की मांग अधिकारपूर्वक नहीं की जा सकती है। माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा ए.आई.आर. 1993 एस.सी. 2486 पंजाब राज्य बनाम जोगेन्द्र सिंह दत्त प्रकरण में यह प्रतिपादित किया गया है कि यह नियोजक का परमाधिकार है कि वह राज्य सेवा के किस कार्मिक को कब और कहां पदस्थापित करे। अपीलार्थी द्वारा अपने स्थानान्तरित स्थान पर 18.10.2019 को कार्यग्रहण कर लिया गया है। उपर्युक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को ध्यान में रखते हुए अपीलार्थी श्री गोवर्धन सिंह पंवार, प्रधानाचार्य का अभ्यावेदन एतद् द्वारा खारिज किया जाकर निस्तारित किया जाता है। सम्बन्धित सूचित हों।"
Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned order dated 20.12.2019, submitted that by a common order the Tribunal had decided four appeals; petitioner's representation stood rejected, whereas representations of other two candidates namely, Rajesh Kumar Tailor and Raj Kumar Sharma were favourably considered - their transfers were cancelled and new place of posting suitable to them has been provided.
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner sailed in the same boat and thus, the respondent No.2 was not justified in rejecting petitioner's representation, while accepting the representation of above named two persons, almost at similar point of time.
Mr. Vishal Jangid, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the respondent No.2 has passed perfectly just and valid order, after considering petitioner's representation. He argued that so far as acceptance of representations of Rajesh Kumar Tailor and Raj Kumar Sharma are concerned, their cases were considered having regard to the grievance raised and difficulties pointed out by them.
Mr. Jangid further argued that the jurisdiction and power of the State is not in question in the present case and so long as the State has power to transfer, an employee in a higher grade of Principal can be transferred through out the boundaries of the State.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is constrained to observe that the order impugned passed by the respondent No.2 is a cyclostyled order, without going into the merit of the representation. If the impugned order dated 20.12.2019, passed in petitioner's case is read in juxtaposition with the corresponding order passed upon the representations of in Rajesh Kumar Tailor and Raj Kumar Sharma, this Court finds that petitioner's representation has been rejected taking shelter of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jogendra Singh, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2486, whereas their representation has been accepted.
If the reasons given in the order dated 20.12.2019 are to be taken as valid reasons, then, there can be no justification for reviewing the transfer order qua the above referred two persons (Rajesh Kumar Tailor and Raj Kumar Sharma).
The petitioner has clearly mentioned that his wife is suffering from neurological disease, whereas his daughter is patient of Bronchities Severe Asthma, while enclosing their medical certificates and documents relating to the treatment.
Such being the position, the respondent No.2 was required to at least consider petitioner's hardship on account of indisposition of his wife and daughter. There is no consideration of the problems pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned order-it is clearly a non speaking order.
The order under challenge, which suffers from non-application of mind, deserves to be quashed and set aside, which I hereby do.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
While setting aside the order dated 20.12.2019, passed by respondent No.2, I hereby direct him to pass a fresh order pursuant to the representation dated 22.10.2019 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today. While passing the order, he shall consider the fact relating to indisposition of petitioner's wife and daughter dispassionately and objectively.
Stay application is also disposed of.