High CourtsSingle Bench

Ranveer Singh vs RCSAT and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 11 February 2011 · Citation: (2011) 02 RAJ CK 0084

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Rastogi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 14366 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 337 words

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Petitioner while serving as Teacher Gr.III having remained posted at one place since the year 2001 in Govt. Primary School Khalasi Panchayat Samiti, Jhunjhunu vide order dt.20/06/2010 on being transferred within district Jhunjhunu at Duriya Panchayat Samiti Udaipurwati, allegedly as per his own saying at a distance of 80 Kms preferred appeal-2501/2010, which was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide order dt.14/10/2010.

2.

Main grievance of the Petitioner by way of filing instant petition is that all the transfers were made under the Scheme of Rationalisation and those having longer stay were transferred; at the same time, document dt.14/09/2010 (Ann.3) has been placed on record to justify that all the transfers of those having longer stay have been cancelled in such circumstances, atleast the Petitioner could not have been transferred under order impugned, which has not been considered by the learned Tribunal while dismissing his appeal.

3.

Submission made on behalf of Petitioner is wholly without substance for the reason that the Petitioner having remained posted at one place since the year 2001 has been transferred at per his own saying at a distance of 80 kms.

4.

Transfer is otherwise an incidence of service and does not affect either of service conditions and one cannot claim any lien to continue at one place for times to come. In absence of malice being imputed against the authority which has passed the transfer order impugned, and it is also not the case of Petitioner that statutory rules have been violated while passing order of his transfer impugned, no interference is called for within a limited scope of judicial review U/Article 226 of the Constitution.

5.

As regards order dt.14/09/2010 (Ann.3) relied by Counsel, suffice it to say that seniority cannot be made an absolute rule while taking administrative decision in regard to transfer of government servant. It is always for the authority to consider in exigency of service or in the interest of administration while transferring government servant.

6.

Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.