S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5862/2007. Ashok Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 19th September 2007. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Nitin Trivedi, for the petitioner. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, working as Lecturer in school education, seeks to question the order dated 31.07.2007 (Annex.1) whereby he has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar to village Binjbayala, District Sriganganagar; and the order dated 08.08.2007 (Annex.4) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dismissing his appeal (No.1316/2007) against the said transfer order. The petitioner has averred that the respondent No.3 Amrit Kaur moved an application requesting her transfer from Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar to the Government Girls Senior Secondary School at Sriganganagar on the vacant post; and the respondents, while accepting her request passed the transfer order but instead of posting her at the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Sriganganagar, proceeded to post her at the Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar vice the petitioner; and the 1 petitioner has been transferred to a very remote area in village Binjbayala, District Sriganganagar. According to the petitioner, his wife is also working as Primary Teacher at Government Primary School, 15Z, Sriganganangar, about 8 kms. away from the township of Sriganganagar; and their one daughter is studying in senior classes at Sriganganagar. The petitioner has averred that he made representation before the respondent No.2 on 10.08.2007 (Annex.3), which has yet not been decided; that left with no option, he approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal No.1316/2007 that has been dismissed in limine by the order dated 08.08.2007 (Annex.4). Assailing the orders aforesaid, the petitioner has urged that there is no administrative exigency in transferring the petitioner; that the respondent No.3 requested for her transfer from Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Sadulshahar to the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Sriganganagar against a vacant post but due to administrative error she had been posted at Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Purani Ababi, Sriganganagar; and in the result, the petitioner has been transferred and posted to a remote area; that transfer of the petitioner remains illegal and unjustified; that as per the policy decision of the Government specifying that when husband and 2 wife are in service they shall be retained at the same place, the petitioner’s transfer is not justified; and that the petitioner’s daughter is studying at Srigangangar and in the mid of the session cannot be shifted to the other place. The petitioner has raised the grievance that his representation has also not been considered and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the questions involved in the case. Having examined the material placed on record and having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter, 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. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 wanted herself to be transferred to the Government Girls Senior Secondary School at Sriganganagar against a vacant post and instead she has been transferred while shifting the petitioner. Apart from the fact that there is no cogent material on record to find that the said incumbent asked only to be accommodated at a particular school, even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that she made any such request, 3 neither the said incumbent nor the petitioner could be acceded any such right that they could insist upon the Government for posting them at a particular place only. The petitioner does not appear justified in insisting upon the Department that the respondent No.3 be posted to a particular place and, therefore, he may not be transferred. Whether the respondent No.3 is posted in place of the petitioner or not, the respondents even otherwise had the right to transfer the petitioner; and there appears no violation of any statutory rule while the respondents have transferred the petitioner from Sriganganagar to Binjbayala. So far the policy of Government is concerned, suffice it to say that such policy or guidelines do not confer upon the government employee any legally enforceable right. Merely because wife of the petitioner is posted at a particular place that does not invest the petitioner with any indefeasible right to continue at the same place of posting. Ultimately, as to who should be transferred where is the matter for the appropriate authority to decide as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Abbas Vs. Union of India: AIR 1993 SC 2444. In relation to the personal difficulties regarding the child, nothing prevented the petitioner from making a proper representation to the authority concerned, and it cannot be 4 assumed that the authority would have turned a blind eye to such representation, if at all the petitioner would have made any. However, the representation made by the petitioner on 10.08.2007 (Annex.3) shows that the petitioner has not even suggested any such personal difficulty as a ground for reconsidering his transfer order. On an overall comprehension of the matter and the observations made by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the petitioner has continued at the same place since the year 1990; and now when the Department has considered it appropriate to transfer him, probably to a rural area, the petitioner is somehow trying to avoid such posting. The Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner; and there does not appear any reason to take any different view of the matter. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction of this court. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/ 5