Ramesh Chand Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Admit.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved with an order dated 14th July, 2007 (Annexure-6) whereby the earlier order dated 12th July, 2007 transferring him from Shahpura to Kota has been cancelled. The order Annexure-6 was also challenged before the Service Tribunal by way of an appeal but the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 1st August, 2007; hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 14th July, 2007 as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 1st August, 2007. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16th July, 2007(Annexure-4) passed by the Deputy Director on the basis of the order dated 14th July, 2007.

The petitioner is working on the post of Stenographer (Hindi). The respondent No. 2 - the Director (Training), Technical Education, Jodhpur, vide its order dated 12th July, 2007 (Annexure-1) transferred 97 employees working on different posts from one place to another within the State of Rajasthan. The name of petitioner finds place at Serial No. 28 whereas name of respondent No. 4 Gopiraj Kishore finds place at Serial No. 29. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner, vide order dated 13th July, 2007, was relieved from Shahpura for joining at Kota, however, before he could join at Kota the order dated 14th July, 2007 (Annexure-6), was passed whereby the order dated 12th July, 2007, so far it related to the employees at Serial Nos. 28 and 29 i.e. in respect of petitioner and respondent No. 4, was cancelled with immediate effect. The petitioner submitted his joining report on 16th July, 2007, but the same was forwarded to the Deputy Director for necessary action. The Deputy Director vide letter dated 16th July, 2007 informed the Superintendent, Mahila ITI, Kota that transfer order of the petitioner has been cancelled vide subsequent order dated 14th July, 2007.

This Court, vide order dated 10th August, 2007, stayed the operation of the orders dated 16th/17th July, 2007 (Annexure-4) and 14th July, 2007 (Annexure-6) qua the petitioner and that stay order is still in operation. The petitioner has been working on the post at Kota since then.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was transferred from Shahpura to Kota vide order dated 12th July, 2007 and, without there being any reason, the same was illegally cancelled vide order dated 14th July, 2007, therefore, in absence of any specific reason, the order cancelling the transfer of the petitioner is illegal and mala-fide also. He further submits that this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 14th July, 2007, therefore, it may be declared as ineffective and the respondents may be given liberty to pass a fresh order.

The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that he has already filed writtenreply to the writ petition stating therein that the orders dated 12th July, 2007 as well as 14th July, 2007, both, were passed in exigency of administration of justice and there is no illegality or mala-fide in passing the same. It has further been contended that the petitioner being an employee does not have any choice for his posting at a particular place, therefore, the writ petition filed by him be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders passed by the respondents.

The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 were transferred along-with 95 other employees from one place to another vide order dated 12th May, 2007. The transfer of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 was cancelled vide order dated 14th July, 2007. The operation of the order dated 14th July, 2007 was stayed by this Court way back on 10th August, 2007 and for the last more than one-and-a-half year the petitioner is working at Kota. The petitioner now wants that he should be allowed to continue at Kota itself. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, held that a Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. Para 4 of the judgment reads as under:

In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order 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 mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-today transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.

It is relevant to mention that in Para 3 of the writ petition the petitioner has mentioned that he challenged the order of cancellation of the earlier transfer order dated 12.07.2007 i.e. the order dated 14.07.2007, by filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, on 19.07.2007, but the Tribunal rejected the appeal at the admission stage on 01.08.2007 by a nonspeaking order. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the order dated 01.08.2007 but the same has not been supplied and it is stated that the same will be produced soon after getting the same from the Tribunal. From the above, it is clear that the order dated 14.07.2007 merged in the order dated 01.08.2007 passed by the Tribunal. A bare perusal of memo of the writ petition shows that initially the order dated 01.08.2007 passed by the Tribunal was not challenged in the writ petition by taking any ground to challenge it or by way of prayer in the prayer clause but it appears that a prayer was inserted in the prayer clause in handwriting praying for the order of the Tribunal dated 01.08.2007 to be quashed and set aside, but it does not appear from the file as to at what stage and on what basis and by which order the said prayer was inserted in handwriting in the prayer clause of the writ petition. The order of the Tribunal has not been placed on the record by the petitioner till date nor any arguments were advanced in this regard during the course of arguments of the case. In absence of the order of the Tribunal on the record, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for rejecting the appeal are not known and cannot be examined and in these circumstances the order dated 14.07.2007 which has emerged in the order dated 01.08.2007 is not open to be challenged in this writ petition.

So far as legality or propriety of the order of cancellation of transfer of an employee from one place to another is concerned, the same cannot be allowed to be challenged unless the same is contrary to any mandatory statutory rules or is proved to be mala-fide. There is no specific pleading or evidence to prove the malafide on the part of the respondents in passing the impugned order.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. D.N. Prasad the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that nature of evidence to establish mala-fides in the matter of transfer should be strong and convincing.

In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.