CWP 7322/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No.7322/2010 Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Raj. & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 18/08/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. HP Singh, for petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Meena,GC ] Mr. Kapil Gupta ], for respondents. The matter has come upon on an application filed by the respondent No.3 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the ex-parte interim order dt.20/05/2010, however, looking to the nature of controversy, with the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is finally disposed of at this stage. The petitioner, who is holding the post of Lecturer (Hindi), after remained posted, as per his own saying, since 2005, was transferred vide order dt. 04/10/2008 from Karauli to Hatodi (Karauli) against which he preferred appeal before the Service Appellate Tribunal. However, the appeal was disposed of with directions to the petitioner to make representation before the concerned authority. However, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, approached this Court by way of CWP-12922/2008 which was disposed of on 18/03/2009 and while upholding th order of Tribunal, the Court direct to maintain status-quo till representation is decided by the competent authority. However, the CWP 7322/2010 [2] representation submitted by the petitioner was decided on 07/09/2009 and the authority, after taking all the submissions made by the petitioner in his representation, considered it appropriate to allow the respondent No.3 herein (Mr. Bharati Lal Meena) to continue at Karauli and upheld the order of transfer of the petitioner which was earlier made vide order dt. 04/10/2008 from Karauli to Hadoti (Karauli). At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition on 17/05/2010 in which interim order was passed by the Court on 20/05/2010 permitting him to continue at the place where he was discharging his duties prior to passing of the order of transfer impugned herein. After the representation was rejected by the authority, the remedy was available with the petitioner to approach the Service Tribunal since a fresh cause of action accrued to him on representation being rejected by the authority. However, since the matter has been heard by the Court, after affording opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the matter. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 had managed to remain at Karauli by one way or the other while he had earlier remained posted at Karauli for last more than a CWP 7322/2010 [3] decade and in these circumstances, there cannot be any justification in transferring the petitioner from Karauli to Hatodi (Karauli) which, as informed to this Court, is at a distance of 40-50 Kilometers. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the transfer of service may be an incident of service and one may not have a right to continue at a place but at the same time, it is always expected from the authority to judiciously exercise its administrative power which, in the instant case, has been abused and only to accommodate the respondent No.3, the petitioner has been transferred vide order impugned. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order of the authority and submitss that it is no a case where the petitioner has alleged any malice against the authority or violation of any statutory rules and no one can claim any lien while holding transferable post and the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the authority way back in September, 2009 and after the petitioner had joined service at Hadoti (Karauli) after rejecting his representation on 14/09/2009 filed instant petition. It appears that it was not brought to the notice of the Court that much before filing of the instant petition, the petitioner had already CWP 7322/2010 [4] complied with the order impugned and joined after his representation was rejected on 14/09/2009. Transfer is otherwise an incidence of service and does not affect either of the service conditions of the employee concerned and in the instant case, when the petitioner has been transferred only at a distance of 40-50 Kilometers that too after remained posted at Karauli for more than five yaers, the action of the respondents cannot be held to be whimsical or arbitrary which may call for interference. Consequently, this Court findings no substance in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu-7322-CW-2010-final.doc