1 In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2992/2007 SETHPAL CHOUHAN V/S RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & Ors. Date of order 13.4.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Imran Khan, for the petitioner. Shri Satish Purohit, Govt. counsel. By the Court: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The matter has come up for orders on an application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ad-interim exparte order dated 28.5.2007 but at the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the final arguments were heard on the writ petition itself and the same is being disposed of. 3. The petitioner who is holding the post of Junior Engineer was transferred vide order dated 15.2.2007 2 (Annexure 7) from SNIP sub-division Bhadra to Bikaner. The Executive Engineer, SNIP, sub-division, Ist, vide its letter dated 17.2.2007 wrote a letter to the Superintendent Engineer to allow the petitioner on the same post. The Assistant Engineer, SNIP, vide its letter dated 20.2.2009 (Annex 9) also wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer to cancel the transfer order of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, challenging his order of transfer dated 15.2.2007 (Annex 7) but the same was dismissed by Tribunal vide order dated 1.3.2007 (Annex. 10). Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. This court vide order dated 28.5.2007 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 15.2.2007 as well as 1.3.2007 and since then the same order is continuing since then till 3 date. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed their reply to the writ petition and also an additional affidavit dated 20.3.2009 before this court explaining the subsequent events took place after passing of stay order dated 28.5.2007 by this Court. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier he was transferred in Oct. 2005 from Bhadra to Baran but the same was cancelled and he was transferred to Churu and again at Bhadra. Therefore, there was no exigency of service for transfer of the petitioner and the Tribunal committed an illegality in not quashing the order of transfer of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was a Government servant and his transfer was in exigencies of service and there was no mala fide on the part of the respondents in passing the impugned order nor the same was contrary to any statutory rule. He 4 further contended that now the period of two years has already been elapsed after passing the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner and the stay order by this court in favour of petitioner, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous and be dismissed as such. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and examined the impugned orders as well as other necessary documents annexed with the writ petition in the light of their submissions. So far as the earlier transfer of petitioner in Oct. 2005 from Bhadra to Baran is concerned, there was no post available at Baran, therefore, the petitioner was posted at Churu and therefore, he was transferred to Bhadra. It is correct that the impugned transfer order of the petitioner was passed on 15.2.2007 and this court stayed the order of transfer and since then the interim order is going on in favour of the petitioner. Now, the period of two years have been expired 5 after passing the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner and there appears to be no malafide on the part of the respondents in passing the impugned order and further it cannot be said that the impugned order was contrary to any statutory rule. The petitioner cannot claim any particular place for his posting. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs and consequently the application filed by the respondents stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. chauhan/