Ramesh Charan vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner preferred the writ petition No. 698/2006 challenging his transfer order dated 18.1.2006, which was stayed by this Court vide order dated 16.2.2006. Then, the petitioner again transferred vide order dated 15.7.2006 and that order was also stayed in writ petition No. 698/2006 vide order dated 21.7.2006. Thereafter, the order dated 21.7.2006 was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 6.12.2006.

Now the petitioner has been transferred by a fresh order from the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Pali to Treasury, Pali and in the same order, there is transfer order for about 40 persons alongwith the petitioner. The petitioner''s contention is that one Sh. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit, who was posted in the Panchayat Samiti, Pali has been transferred to the office of the Tehsil Pali. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently is that in spite of the fact that the interim orders passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 698/2006 are in force, yet the petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 1.1.2009. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated as Sh. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit was transferred, but he has not been relieved, whereas the petitioner has been transferred and he has been relieved. Not only this, the petitioner has been transferred for nonexistent ground, which is clear from the office order dated 18.12.2009, wherein it has been stated that the State Government has abolished the post of Junior Accountant in the office of the Panchayat Samitis and, therefore, petitioner''s transfer has been sought. This fact is absolutely wrong in view of the fact that Sh. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit is also Junior Accountant and he is yet working in the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Pali.

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order was passed in administrative exigencies.

I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. So far as writ petition No. 698/2006 is concerned, that has already become infructuous in view of the subsequent order passed by the respondents transferring the petitioner from Panchayat Samiti, Pali to Treasury, Pali and, therefore, the writ petition No. 698/2006 deserves to be dismissed as having become infructuous.

The contention of the petitioner that during the currency of the interim orders passed by this Court, this impugned order of transfer dated 1.1.2009 has been passed by the respondents is in gross violation of the propriety. The arguments deserve to be rejected summarily as the transfer orders, which were under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 698/2006 do not convey that the employer''s all rights to transfer the employee have been taken away. The orders under challenge in the writ petition No. 698/2006 have been challenged on the ground of alleged illegality legality in those orders and not on the ground that the employer has no right to transfer the petitioner at all .

The contention of the petitioner that petitioner is discriminated by relieving him and not relieving Sh. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit from Panchayat Samiti, Pali is also has no legal basis because by the order dated 1.1.2009 not only these two persons but about 40 persons have been transferred and incidentally, one of the persons Sh. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit also has been transferred. The employer had right not to transfer any other employee from the Panchayat Samiti, Pali and had right to transfer even one person from that place. Be it as it may be, even non- relieving of Narpat Singh Rajpurohit after transfer order dated 1.1.2009 is of no consequence because it is for the employer to decide when to relieve a person. Relieving the petitioner from the post to join the transferred post as such is not a ground to hold any malafide against the respondents. The petitioner who continued at the same place since 2006 and before that period if has been transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Pali to Treasury, Pali, I do not find that in such matter, this Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction on any of the grounds as raised by the petitioner.

Therefore, the writ petition No. 130/2010 is dismissed and the writ petition No. 698/2006 is dismissed as having become infructuous.