1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6514/2007. Durg Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 11th October 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. H.S. Sidhu, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: The petitioner, working on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Forest Department of the Government of Rajasthan, having been transferred from Forest Division, Pali to Forest Division, Barmer by the order issued by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 31.01.2007 (Annex.P/7) questioned his transfer order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.27/2007 after a writ petition filed by him, being CWP No.817/2007, was disposed of by this Court on 13.03.2007 relegating him to such alternative remedy of appeal while staying the effect and operation of the transfer order dated 31.01.2007. The Tribunal in the first instance by its interim order dated 21.02.2007 (Annex.P/8) stayed the operation of the said transfer order but ultimately proceeded to dismiss the appeal finding it bereft of substance by its impugned order dated 22.08.2007 (Annex.P/10). Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2 Assailing the impugned orders (Annex.P/7 & Annex.P/10), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned transfer order having been made without any administrative exigency and only in order to accommodate the respondent No.4 deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.4 was posted at Pali on temporary basis under the order dated 19.07.2005 (Annex.P/1); that such posting of respondent No.4 at Pali was for temporary arrangement and as there was no sanctioned post at Pali, his salary was drawn from Jodhpur under the order dated 31.08.2005 (Annex.P/12); that the respondent No.4 moved an application for his posting at Jodhpur and thereupon comments were sought from the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pali who in turn stated by his communication dated 17.04.2006 (Annex.P/4) that his office had no objection if the respondent No.4 who was excess at Pali and whose salary was drawn from Jodhpur, be posted back at Jodhpur and same kind of proposition was stated by the Conservator of Forest, Jodhpur under his communication dated 04.05.2006 (Annex.P/5). Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No.1 issued a transfer order on 29.01.2007 (Annex.P/6) whereby the respondent No.4 Kailash Nath was transferred from Forest Division, Pali to Forest Division, Barmer against a vacant post but by the subsequent 3 order dated 31.01.2007 (Annex.P/7), the petitioner was transferred from Pali to Barmer and simultaneously, the transfer order in relation to the respondent No.4 as made on 29.01.2007 was cancelled. Learned counsel, while referring to the order passed by this Court in earlier Writ Petition No. 817/2007 and the orders passed by the learned Tribunal, submitted that the Tribunal has seriously erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and in failing to consider that the impugned transfer order dated 31.01.2007 in relation to the petitioner having been made only in order to accommodate the respondent No.4 deserves to be quashed; that the said respondent No.4 was an excess employee at Pali and he had been requesting for his transfer to Jodhpur and his salary was also drawn from Jodhpur and the Department, instead of considering the fact that the said incumbent was the excess employee at Pali and instead of transferring him, has proceeded to transfer the petitioner and at the same time has cancelled the earlier order made for the purpose of transfer of the said respondent No.4 to Barmer. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner had been working at Pali only from the year 2004 whereas other incumbents staying at Pali since the year 1985 and having much longer stay have been retained; that if at all any transfer was to be made, the persons with longer stay ought to have been shifted/transferred and 4 not the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended with reference to the document Annexure-P/11 that the post of Lower Division Clerk at Barmer has since been abolished by the said order issued on 01.09.2007 and the proposition of the Department to transfer the petitioner to Barmer cannot be said to in any administrative exigency and instead, the same would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Having examined the material placed on record and having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and does not merit admission. It remains trite in law that, ordinarily, the order of transfer is not required to be interfered with unless is challenged on the ground of mala fide or violation of any statutory requirement. No such case is made out so as to call for interference in this writ petition. The petitioner has founded his challenge to the transfer order in his relation (Annex.P/7) on the specious ground that the respondent No.4 was an excess employee at Pali and there had been proposal for his transfer back to Jodhpur as he was sent to Pali only as a temporary measure, therefore, he (the respondent No.4) alone ought to have been transferred; and that the petitioner has been transferred in order to 5 accommodate respondent No.4 at Pali after cancelling the earlier transfer order dated 29.01.2007. The submission is bereft of substance. It is noticed from the order Annexure-1 that the said respondent No.4 was sent from Jodhpur to Pali on a specific requisition made by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pali of an employee proficient in computer operation. The said arrangement was made as back as on 19.07.2005. Whether services of the said respondent No.4 were to be taken at Jodhpur or at Pali or at any other place, remains obviously a matter to be considered and dealt with by the authorities concerned. In what manner, the salary of the said employee was to be drawn is again a matter for the administration to decide. Whether the said respondent No.4 was to be transferred back to Jodhpur or to be transferred to Barmer or to any other place or to be retained at Pali is again a matter for the Department to consider. The petitioner does not appear justified in coming out with a suggestion that because the respondent No.4 happens to be an excess employee at Pali, he alone ought to be transferred. It is true that by the order dated 29.01.2007, the said respondent No.4 was ordered to be transferred to Forest Division, Barmer and two days later, his transfer to Barmer was cancelled by the impugned order dated 31.01.2007. It is also true that by the same order dated 31.01.2007, the 6 petitioner has been transferred from Pali to Barmer. However, from this fact alone, it is difficult to conclude that the petitioner has been picked up only for the purpose of accommodating respondent No.4 at Pali. As noticed above, the said respondent No.4 had been sent to Pali way back in the month of July 2005 and the petitioner had also been working at Pali since the year 2004. The transfer orders made in the month of January 2007 are difficult to be co-related with the fact that the respondent No.4 was treated excess at Pali. Though the petitioner has put a challenge to his transfer order with reference to the posting of the respondent No.4 at Pali but the fundamental fact remains that whether respondent No.4 was posted at Pali or not, the Department could definitely have transferred the petitioner to any other place; and the petitioner cannot suggest to the Department if he should not be transferred or if anybody else should be transferred. It is difficult to make out from the suggestions made in this case if the order has been made only for the purpose of accommodating the respondent No.4. Moreover, this Court is clearly of opinion that even if an order is made for the purpose of accommodating another, it cannot be pronounced as illegal or bad on that count alone as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 1991 SC 532 that,- 7 “If the competent authority issued transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered by the court merely because the transfer order were passed on the request of the employees concerned.” The other submission regarding the persons with longer stay at Pali is fundamentally baseless and of no consequence. The petitioner has failed to show if there is any statutory requirement of transferring the incumbents only on the basis of their length of stay. Yet another submission regarding abolition of one post at Barmer also remains totally irrelevant and baseless. It is noticed that the order (Annex.P/11) of abolition of certain posts has been issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest on 01.09.2007 and certain posts in the office of Deputy Conservator of Forest, Barmer of Lower Division Clerk have been abolished as stated at items Nos.4 and 12. However, noticeable it is the transfer order in question was made as back as on 31.01.2007 and the same could not be executed qua the petitioner for the litigation taken by him and for the interim orders passed in his case. The order (Annex.P/11) has no co-relation with the impugned order dated 31.01.2007. Moreover, noticeable it is that the petitioner has been transferred to Forest Division, Barmer and as to in which office 8 and where his services are to be utilised is again a matter for the Department to consider. Reference to the said order dated 01.09.2007 could only be pronounced as absolutely irrelevant so far challenge to the impugned order is concerned. 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. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. [Mohan]