1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6542/2007 (Shiv Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & others) DATED : 11th October 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M. S. Panwar, for the petitioner BY THE COURT By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge his transfer/posting order dated 31.07.2007 (Annex.2); and the order dated 29.08.2007 (Annex.3) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Bench Jodhpur rejecting his appeal (No.1660/2007). The petitioner has averred that he was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the category of Physically Handicapped persons in the year 1978; that the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner issued a transfer order on 31.07.2007 (Annex.2) whereby he was ordered to be transferred from Bikaner to Mohangarh at a distance of about 400 kms; that aggrieved of the aforesaid transfer order he preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and submitted that in view of the notification dated 20.07.2000 issued by the department of Administrative Reforms and Co- ordination, his being a handicapped person, ought not be transferred away from headquarters and also submitted that 2 his mother is suffering from heart problems and he was the lone person to attend on her. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss his appeal on misinterpretation of the government rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has been in serious error in failing to consider that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and his transfer about 400 kms away from home is not in accord with the directions contained in the notification dated 20.07.2000 (placed with the memo of appeal as Annexure-5; page 29 of the present petition) that requires posting such handicapped persons at the place of their choice or nearby. Learned counsel contended that the impugned transfer order has been issued without any administrative exigency, and in disregard of the notification aforesaid and, thus, deserves to be interfered with. Learned counsel also submitted that for his mother suffering from heart ailment, and the petitioner having made representation pointing out his personal problems, the authorities ought to have looked into the same instead of seeking to implement the transfer order. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission. 3 It remains trite in law that an order of transfer is ordinarily not interfered with by the courts unless the same is shown to be suffering from mala fide or from violation of any statutory requirement. It is noticed that the petitioner has not suggested any ground in the writ petition that could be indicative of challenge to the impugned order on the ground of any mala fide or violation of any statutory requirement. The pivotal submission of the petitioner has been that he is physically handicapped person and the notification aforesaid provides that such persons be posted at the places of their choice or nearby; and that the authorities were not justified in transferring him to a place 400 kms away from the present place of posting. This Court is clearly of opinion that the submissions so made on behalf of the petitioner have no direct co-relation with any statutory requirement. So far the guidelines are concerned, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas: AIR 1993 SC 2444, such guidelines do not confer upon the Government employee any legally enforceable right; and as to who should be transferred where is the matter for appropriate authority to decide. Even the guidelines as referred by the petitioner only state a proposition to the appointing authorities to consider posting an employee with physical disabilities at the place of his choice or at any 4 other place nearby. Such proposition is hardly any rule of mandatory character that could be claimed to be enforced by the petitioner; or for disregard whereof the transfer order may be declared illegal. The Tribunal has taken all the facts and circumstance of the case into account and has found the case not worth interference and there does not appear any reason to take any different view in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In relation to the personal difficulties, nothing prevented the petitioner from making a proper representation to the authority concerned and it cannot be assumed that if he would have made a proper representation, the authority would have turned a blind eye to the same. It is noticed that it had not been the specific case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that he made any such representation that had not been considered by the authorities concerned. In the last, learned counsel submitted that the authority may be directed to decide his representation objectively within some time and till then the transfer order may be kept in abeyance. Having examined the fact situation of the present case, this Court is clearly of opinion that the proposition as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The fact situation of the present case is that no such representation has been placed on record to find the grounds urged by the petitioner before the Tribunal, if at all. 5 Leaving such shortcomings aside, if the petitioner has made or if he now makes any such representation, it is for the authorities concerned to deal with the same and to take an appropriate decision in that regard. For this Court being satisfied that otherwise there is no ground for interference in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, the present one does not appear appropriate a case where implementation of the order impugned be kept in abeyance till consideration of the representation, whether made or to be made by the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, it is clarified that irrespective of what has been observed above, the petitioner is still free to make a request/representation to the authority concerned in accordance with law. With the observations aforesaid, the writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK