CW 6691/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6691/08 Subhash Chandra Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 01/09/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Ashok Bansal, for petitioner Mr. Ajay Raj Tantia, for respondent *** Matter has come up on application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex-parte stay order passed by this court dt.21st July, 2008, but with the consent of parties, it is finally decided at this stage. Petitioner, while working as Ranger Gr.I, was earlier transferred vide order Ann.R3/1 dt.9th July, 2004 against the vacancy which was occupied by Ranger Gr.II Shri Heeralal Maderna whose name finds place at Serial No.5 in the said order. After working for almost 4 yrs. against the post of Ranger Gr.II, he was transferred vide order Ann.2 dt.24th June, 2008 from DDP, Jaisalmer to OECF, Mohangarh [Jaisalmer]. This order was challenged on the premise that he being in the cadre of Ranger Gr.I, has been transferred to OECF, Mohangarh [Jaisalmer] where officer of Range Gr.II was posted which is not permissible and being higher in cadre could not have been transferred against the lower post of Ranger CW 6691/08 [2] Gr.II. Counsel further submits that this is an isolated order passed by the respondents transferring petitioner vice respondent No.3 which certainly impute malice against the authority who has passed the order impugned and such action is an arbitrary exercise of power available under R.20 of the Rules and cannot be said to be in the interest of administration. In support of his submission, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this court reported in 2005 (2) WLC-690. Counsel for respondent No.3 filed application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte stay order and also filed additional affidavit pointing out that earlier the petitioner being Ranger Gr.I, was transferred against the post held by officer of Ranger Gr.II and he never raised objection and after working for 4 yrs. against the post of Ranger Gr.II he has now been transferred vide order impugned Ann.2 and at this point of time he raised objection questioning his posting which certainly dis-entitles him from his conduct to question the same. Counsel further submits that these posts of Ranger Gr.I & II are inter- changeable and in the light of circular dt.27th June, 1991, which has been placed on record along with rejoinder, that if more than one officer are CW 6691/08 [3] posted in a Range, Ranger Gr.I who is senior will be the Ranger Officer and Ranger Gr.II will work under him. Since where petitioner has been posted there is only one post and he is not supposed to work under subordination of any Ranger Gr.II Officer. Thus, circular has no application. According to him, such like controversy has been examined by Co-ordinate Bench at the Main Seat at Jodhpur in CW No.2290/08 where it has been observed that there is no distinction made by the government regarding posting of Ranger Gr.I and Ranger Gr.II in various Forest Range. Petitioner has been transferred after holding the post for four years under order impugned which is transferable post. The authority in the interest of administration or in exigency of service can always consider to transfer, if so required. No malice has been imputed against the authority who has passed the order impugned. Submission made by counsel for petitioner that he has been transferred against the post of Ranger Gr.II vice respondent No.3 is of no substance for the reason that prior to his transfer under order impugned dt.24th June, 2008, petitioner was working at DDP, Jaisalmer where he was posted in pursuance of order dt.9th July, 2004 CW 6691/08 [4] [Ann.R3/1] against the post of Ranger Gr.II. As such, atleast no grievance could have been raised at this stage and apart from it, it also appears that posts of Ranger Gr.I/II are inter-changeable – it has also been observed in CW No.2290/08. As regards judgment [supra], on which counsel for petitioner placed reliance is of no assistance in the facts of instant case. Consequently, this court finds no substance in the instant petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA6691CW2008 1-9.doc