CWP 13219/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13219/2009 Smt. Madhu Bala Saxena Vs. Director, Sanskrit Education & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 23/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Anil Upman for petitioner *** The petitioner is working as Teacher Grade II. Since 1992, almost before her promotion in February, 2003, she remained in District Bharatpur, however, on promotion as Senior Teacher/Teacher Grade II, she was transferred to District Dausa but on her own request made, she was brought back to Bharatpur vide Annexure-1 dt. 27/07/2007. Obviously, when the petitioner was accommodated on her request, the respondent No. 3 was disturbed and was transferred vice her. After the petitioner remained at Bharatpur for a period of 2 years, by subsequent order dt. 18/09/2009 the petitioner was transferred to Dausa and the respondent No. 3 was brought back to Bharatpur vice petitioner. This order was challenged by way of appeal before the Tribunal by the petitioner which was rejected on 13/10/2009 (Anx.6). However, the Tribunal has observed that prior to June, 2007 she had worked at District Bharatpur from 1992 till she was promoted in 2003 as Senior CWP 13219/09 [2] Teacher and was transferred to Dausa and even after more than 2 years of her stay in Bharatpur, she was transferred that too in District Dausa vide order impugned Anx. 4 dt. 18/09/2009 and taking into consideration the totality of the facts, the Tribunal did not find favour to consider the grievance of the petitioner as prayed for. Counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 did not join in District Dausa in pursuance to the order Anx. 1 dt. 27/07/2007 and later on the order impugned Anx. 4 dt. 18/09/2009 has been passed only to accommodate respondent No.3 alone which cannot be said to be in the interest of administration. It was also urged before the Tribunal that her husband is in Government service working in District Bharatpur and as per the policy of the State it is normally expected to remain the spouses posted at one station that too has not been implemented by the respondents while passing the order impugned. From the material on record, it goes to show that the petitioner remained posted in District Bharatpur for sufficient long time for almost the total service rendered by her and came to CWP 13219/09 [3] District Dausa only on her promotion as Senior Teacher but on her own request she was brought back to Bharatpur vide order Anx.1 dt. 27/07/2007 and certainly the said order was passed to accommodate the petitioner. Submission made by counsel for petitioner that the order impugned dt. 18/09/2009 has been passed to accommodate the respondent No. 3, suffice it to say that the authority, on representation being made by the employees, always considers their hardship and taking note thereof in the interest of administration or exigencies of service passes the order of transfer and whenever somebody is transferred, certainly someone is accommodated but that cannot be considered to be a malafide act of the authority exercising its powers under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Further submission made that the respondent No.3 had not joined at Dausa, in the opinion of this Court, if at all she has committed a misconduct in discharge of her duties it is always open to the controlling authority to take action permitted under law but on that count order impugned cannot be said to be bad in law. The learned Tribunal has also considered the submissions raised by the petitioners in detail CWP 13219/09 [4] but did not find favour. This Court has also gone through the order impugned passed by the Tribunal and does not find any manifest error which may call for interference. Consequently, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-13219-CW-2009-final.doc