CW 12999/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.12999/2009 Om Prakash Sharma Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 21/10//09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Mahesh Gupta, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed by petitioner who was transferred by State Government in exercise of powers U/s 89(8A) of Rajasthan Panchayatiraj Act read with R.290 (2) of Rajasthan Panchayatiraj Rules, 1996 vide order dt.18/09/09 (Ann.1) to Sapotra (Karauli) in the interest of administration, while holding post of Gram Sevak after having remained posted in Panchayat Samiti Roopbas (Bharatpur) for sufficient long time. It would be relevant to mention that vide order impugned (Ann.1) in all 829 employees were transferred from one Panchayat Samiti to the other - few of them including petitioner were transferred for administrative reasons and some on account of their own request or some for other reasons. The order of transfer impugned (Ann.1) was assailed by petitioner before the Tribunal in appeal- 842/2009 which was rejected vide order dt. 08/10/09 (Ann.3). CW 12999/09 //2// Counsel submits that petitioner is going to retire in April, 2011 and there cannot be any justification or administrative reason to transfer him under order impugned. Counsel further submits that vide Circular No.F.28(40)Panchayatraj/Gramsevak/Samjhota/07/ 724/dt.24/02/02, it has been observed that ordinarily Gram Sevaks should not be transferred outside their district; however, for special reasons, the authority will be competent to transfer with permission of the State Government. As observed (supra), petitioner remained posted at Roopbas for almost seven years before passing of order impugned and the State Government holds its absolute authority in transferring employees even from one Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad to the other in exercise of powers U/S 89(8A) of Rajasthan Panchayati Act, 1994. It is not the case of petitioner that the authority which passed the order of his transfer impugned is not competent, or action of the authority is malafide under the law requiring interference. As regards submission that petitioner is going to retire in April, 2011, that cannot be considered to be a ground particularly in the matter like such where person has worked CW 12999/09 //3// for last more than seven years in one Panchayat Samiti and has been transferred in the interest of administration. There cannot be such a rule that person having service remained only of one year should not be disturbed. As already observed (supra), order has been passed in interest of administration by State Government from one Panchayat Samiti to the other. As regards submission made with respect to Circular dt.24/02/02, it has clearly been envisaged and observed therein that if some body has to be transferred for special reasons with permission of the higher authority. In instant case, when order has been passed by State Government, no further permission is required to be obtained and that apart, these are administrative guidelines which do not have any binding effect. The learned Tribunal has also taken note whereof and does not find any justification to interfere. This Court also does not find manifest error being committed which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/ 12999CW09Oct21-Ds.doc