S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5910/2007 Suman Samrat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 3rd October 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. P.R. Singh, for the petitioner By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, a house- keeper working with the General Administration Department of the Government of Rajasthan, seeks to question the order dated 31.07.2007 whereby he has been transferred from Circuit House, Jaisalmer to Circuit House, Sirohi; and the order dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dismissing his appeal (No.1430/2007) against the said transfer order. It has been strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the orders aforesaid that the order of transfer of the petitioner has been issued merely on the basis of some alleged complaint made by the respondent No.4, the manager of Circuit House, Jaisalmer and being stigmatic, deserves to quashed; that the petitioner is a low paid employee and has been transferred about 550 kms. away from his present place of posting without any administrative exigency and nobody has been posted in his 1 place; that the representation made by the petitioner has not been given due consideration by the authorities concerned; and that the learned Tribunal has proceeded to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner without considering the record of the case and without taking into comprehension all the facts and circumstances. 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. So far the allegation of the petitioner regarding the transfer having been ordered on some complaint is concerned, there is no corroborative material available on record to substantiate such allegation nor there appears any reason to believe that the concerned authorities have proceeded in any manner aiming at harassment or victimization of the petitioner. Even if it be assumed that the manager of Circuit House, under whose immediate control the petitioner was working as 2 a house-keeper, did make any complaint against him, there is nothing on record to find if the transfer is an outcome of such complaint only. Yet further, even if it be assumed that such complaint was also taken into consideration while issuing the transfer order, it cannot be said that the transfer order is vitiated on that count alone. Providing for smooth and hassles-free working at any place is a part of management of every organization; and taking that aspect into consideration and issuing orders aimed at minimizing the conflicts and achieving the goals of delivering better results cannot be said be beyond the realm of administrative exigencies. It has been pointed out during the course of arguments by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said manager of Circuit House, Jaisalmer has also been transferred. The submission only indicates that the department had not been oblivious of administrative exigencies. In any case, such transfer order of the manager is not the subject of consideration herein and no comments in relation thereto are necessary. This fact has only been noticed, as stated by the petitioner, to find that the department cannot be said to have acted mala fide against the petitioner. The representation made by the petitioner (Annex. 2 with the memo of appeal – page 23) states only the grievance that the petitioner has been transferred at the complaint of the 3 manager. The authorities cannot be faulted if they had ignored such representation that does not make out any case for re- consideration of the transfer order. The petitioner holds a transferable post and merely because he has been transferred to Sirohi from Jaisalmer, and merely looking to the distance between the two places it cannot be said that the transfer order has been issued for the purpose of harassment of the petitioner without regard to the administrative exigencies. It has been contended that nobody else has been posted vice the petitioner. This again is a matter for authorities concerned to decide as to which particular post is to be manned by whom; and as to how the work force is to be deployed. Noticeable it is that the petitioner has been posted at Sirohi on a vacant post. 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. MK 4