AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—The petitioner, working as a Patwari with the respondents Nos. 2 to 4, has filed this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated 06.08.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No. 1219/2007 whereby his appeal against the impugned transfer order dated 15.07.2006 has been dismissed in limine.
The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that while working at Chhila (Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur), he was transferred to Jamba (Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur) by the order dated 15.07.2005 (Annex.1). According to the petitioner, he joined his duties at Jamba in pursuance of the said order Annexure-1 but then, he was transferred from Jamba (Tehsil Phalodi) to Jambheshwar Nagar (Tehsil Phalodi) by the order dated 19.11.2005 and he joined at his new place of posting at Jambheshwar Nagar. The petitioner has raised the grievance that within a short period of eight months, he has been served with the impugned transfer order dated 15.07.2006 (Annex.3) whereby he has been transferred from Jambheshwar Nagar (Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur) to Tena (Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur).
The petitioner earlier challenged the order dated 15.07.2006 by way of writ petition No. 5064/2006 that was admitted for consideration by this Court on 08.09.2006 and way of interim order, the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 15.07.2006 was stayed. The said writ petition was ultimately decided on 17.07.2007 when, in view of the objection taken by the respondents in the reply about availability of alternative remedy by way of filing appeal before the Tribunal, the writ petition was permitted to be not pressed so as to enable the petitioner to take resort to the alternative remedy in accordance with law.
After decision of the said writ petition, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 06.08.2007 and on the same date, the Tribunal, after considering the appeal has observed that the appellant (petitioner) has continued with his posting within Jodhpur District for long; if he has been transferred for administrative exigencies, neither such transfer could be termed arbitrary nor could be said to have been made for any malafide; and that the transfer policy remains only directory and not of any legal effect. The Tribunal also considered the submissions of the appellant (petitioner) that he has been transferred in short span of time but again observed that there was no infringement of any right of the petitioner when there was no such legal requirement that the transfer order could be made only after particular period of posting. The Tribunal also considered the submissions of the appellant (petitioner) that he was not provided with travelling allowance and joining period under the order in question and observed that if he had been transferred for administrative reason then he would be entitled for such allowances and joining period in accordance with law. The Tribunal also observed that the transfer was essentially an exigency of service and the transfer order was not vitiated for any malafide or for any extraneous consideration and called for no interference.
Assailing the order aforesaid, learned Counsel Mr. K.L. Khatri appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the fact that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers is apparent on the face of the record when he has been transferred thrice over within a short span of 12 months; and such transfers cannot be said to have been made in administrative exigencies. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also questioned the observations made by the learned Tribunal about his longer stay in the District of Jodhpur and pointed out that the petitioner while holding the post of Patwari cannot be transferred outside the District without sanction of the Member, Land Records, Board of Revenue; and transfer from one Division to another shall have to be sanctioned by the Board of Revenue; and no such order having been made by the Board, the petitioner has rightly been continued within the District of Jodhpur. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Members of Tribunal have failed to consider the crux of the matter that the petitioner submitted with reference to Clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Land Revenue (Land Record) Rules, 1957 that transfer of Patwari should not be made unless the Officer satisfied himself that the transfer was necessary in the interest of efficiency of work or other requirements, and the impugned order having not been passed for any such reason, deserves to be quashed. Learned Counsel further submitted that a decision of this Court in the case of Brij Lal Bagoria v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : 1990 (1) RLR 354 was cited before the Tribunal that has not been even taken note of in the order impugned. Learned Counsel submitted that ordinarily an incumbent is not supposed to be transferred before two years of his posting at a particular place and such administrative instructions are meant for compliance and not for avoidance.
Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the record of the case, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission.
An overall comprehension of the facts and circumstances of this case makes it clear that by the impugned order (Annex.3) the petitioner has been posted within the District of Jodhpur as Patwari at Tena (Tehsil Shergarh) against a vacant post. Rule 9(ii) of the Rules of 1957 as sought to be referred by the petitioner itself postulates transfer of Patwari if the officer concerned is satisfied that such transfer is necessary in the interest of efficiency of work or to fill up vacancy created by long leave, resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of a Patwari. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been transferred to accommodate any other person nor such position emerges from the record. It of course appears from the record that the petitioner was earlier transferred from Chhila to Jamba on 15.07.2005 and from Jamba to Jambheshwar Nagar on 19.11.2005. However, it appears that his transfer to Jambheshwar Nagar was also against a vacant post and in the requirements of the administrative set up if the respondent Collector has considered it proper to place the petitioner against a vacant post at Tena, no exception can be taken against the order merely because it resulted in a transfer within eight months of the earlier transfer order. It has not been shown in the Rules that such a transfer order can never be made in such frequency; and learned Members of the Tribunal appear to be correct in observing that there was no requirement of the Rules that a transfer should be made only after a particular period of stay at a particular place. No such period of stay being envisaged by the Rules, the transfer order in relation to the petitioner as made in the present case cannot be said to be illegal merely for the same having been made within eight months of the earlier transfer order.
The observations as made by the learned Members of the Tribunal regarding longer stay of the petitioner at Jodhpur are relevant only to the extent that the petitioner has otherwise continued within the District of Jodhpur only; and having regard to the scheme of the Rules of 1957, the petitioner could have been transferred outside the District or from one Division to another also, of course, after following the procedure prescribed. The observations are indicative of the fact that the learned Members of the Tribunal were satisfied that the respondents have not acted in any manner prejudicial to the petitioner nor the transfer order could be said to have been made for extraneous reasons or considerations.
Reference to the decision of this Court in Brij Lal Bagoria''s case (supra) appears to be fundamentally misplaced. The facts of the said case make it clear that the petitioner concerned was sought to be displaced specifically in order to accommodate the respondent No. 4 and in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court found that when the orders are passed with malafide intention and in colourable exercise of powers, such exercise calls for intervention by this Court. It may be pointed out that even in a given case, a transfer made for the purpose of accommodating another, cannot be also said to have been made in colourable exercise of powers and cannot be challenged on that count alone as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, that in a given case a competent authority could issue transfer order even with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship. Be that as it may, the present one is not a case where the transfer order has been made in order to accommodate any other person in place of the petitioner and the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel has no application to the facts of the present case.
Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court is satisfied that the learned Tribunal has considered the matter in its entirety and the order passed by the learned Tribunal remains just and proper and does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court.
The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected.