1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5192/2008 Dr. D.P. Punia Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of Order :: 6.8.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mr. N.M. Lodha, Addl. Advocate General. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, for the respondent No.2. Mr. V.K. Mathur, ... The respondent No.2 was selected and appointed as Principal, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur and Controller of Associated Group of Hospitals, Jodhpur w.e.f. 31.7.2008 by an order dated 27.6.2008 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Medical Education (Gr.I). The order dated 27.6.2008 was cancelled by an another order dated 15.7.2008. On the same day an another order was passed posting the respondent No.2 as Principal, Medical College, Bikaner and the Controller, Associated Group of Hospitals, Bikaner. On 15.7.2008 itself the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Medical Education (Gr.I) passed an another order to transfer and post the petitioner as Principal, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur-cum Controller, Associated Group of Hospitals. By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the orders transferring the petitioner as Principal, SN Medical College, Jodhpur cum Controller, Associated Group of Hospitals, Jodhpur and also the order cancelling the transfer of respondent No.2. 2 It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner as well as the cancellation of the transfer of respondent No.2 is not in administrative exigency. As per counsel for the petitioner the transfer of petitioner is made only to accommodate respondent No.2 at SP Medical College, Bikaner. It is also urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is going to retire from service within a period of two years, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and Ors. the transfer of the petitioner was undesirable. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State as well as by the private respondent. In reply to the writ petition details of the administrative exigency warranting retention of the respondent No.2 at Bikaner are given as follows: “It is pertinent to submit here that at S.P. Medical College, Bikaner, there is one post of Professor and Head of the Department in Cardiology and Dr. Raja Babu Panwar was/is holding the said post for the last more than 11 years and there is no other Professor in the Department of Cardiology at Bikaner. It is made clear that on the post of Professor and Head of the Department of Radio Therapy at S.P. Medical College, Bikaner, Dr. Ram Karan Choudhary has already been given posting vide order dated 28.7.2008 and as such, there is no vacant post of Professor and Head in the Department of Radio Therapy at S.P. Medical College, Bikaner. The copy of 3 the order dated 28.7.2008 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure R/2. It is submitted that on the contrary, at Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, the post of Professor and Head in the Department of Radio Therapy was/is lying vacant. It is further submitted that in Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, one post of Professor and Head in the Department of Cardiology is sanctioned and against that post, Dr. Sanjeev Sanghvi is posted. In such circumstances, if respondent No.2 Dr. Raja Babu Panwar is posted at Jodhpur then that would result in posting of two Professors against one sanctioned post and so also, the post of Professor and Head in the Department of Cardiology at S.P. Medical College will remain vacant. Apart from above, the most important aspect of the matter which requires to be considered by this Hon'ble Court is that a Cardiothoracic Centre involving an investment of Rs.15 crores is being established at S.P. Medical College, Bikaner in Private Public Partnership services [PPP services] with motivation of Dr. Raja Babu Panwar who is presently working as Professor and Head in the Department of Cardiology at Bikaner and therefore, for the smooth functioning of that Centre, in administrative exigency as also in public interest, it was thought just and proper to keep Dr. Raja Babu Panwar posted at S.P. Medical College, Bikaner. It is further submitted that besides above, a proposal is under consideration of Medical Council of India for initiating Doctor of Medicine (D.M.) (Cardiology) course at Bikaner. Therefore, Dr. Raja Babu Panwar being the Professor in Cardiology is more suitable for posting as Principal, Medical College, Bikaner instead of Principal, Dr.S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur.” It is also stated that so far as the charge kept with the petitioner relating to Acharya Shri Tusli Regional Cancer Treatment and Research Center, Bikaner is concerned that is subject to the conditions referred in the memo of association for the research institute referred above. Heard counsel for the parties. 4 A detailed reply is given by the State of Rajasthan stating therein that in Department of Cardiology at SP Medical College, Bikaner there is only one post of Professor and none else than the respondent No.2 is there to hold the post aforesaid. On the other hand so far as the Department of Radiotherapy is concerned one Sh. Ram Karan Choudhary has already been posted by way of transfer on 28.7.2008, as such, the administrative exigency warrants retention of respondent No.2 at SP Medical College, Bikaner. I am in absolute agreement with the administrative exigencies referred in para 5 of the reply warranting retention of respondent No.2 at Bikaner. The respondents have taken into consideration the need of a Professor in Department of Cardiology at Medical College, Bikaner and that is quite just. In view of it, I do not find any extraneous consideration in retaining respondent No.2 at Bikaner by cancelling the order of transfer. So far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta (supra) is concerned, suffice to mention that the administrative instructions relating to transfer are certainly required to be kept in mind while transferring an officer, but those cannot prevail over the administrative exigency and public interest. It is also well settled that the courts are required to interfere with the orders of transfers only in the event of violation of statute or if the order of 5 transfer is outcome of malafides or extraneous consideration, or if the transfer is shockingly arbitrary. The petition for writ, for the reasons given is having no merits, same is, therefore, dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '