1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Lehri Lal Paliwal Vs. The State Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3582/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :- March 15, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.D.P. Sharma, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th January, 2010 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, whereby while quashing the transfer orders dated 17.12.2009 & 19.12.2009, the Tribunal has made the following observation : ूशासिनक कारणो से ू×यथȸ ǒवभाग यǑद अपीलाथȸ का ःथानांतरण करना आवँयक समझता है, तो उसके िलए ःवतंऽ है तथा इसमɅ अिधकरण का आदेश बाधक नहȣं है, ÈयɉǑक अपीलाथȸ वत[मान ःथान पर 1996 से लगातार पदःथाǒपत है 1 The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal has travelled beyond its jurisdiction to pass such an observation and to give the freedom to transfer the petitioner to the respondents on the basis of administrative reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal should not have observed the fact that the petitioner was working at his present place of posing since 1996. According to the learned 2 counsel, such an observation prejudices the case of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Undoubtedly, the judiciary has to observe certain deference to the Executive. While the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the transfer order, if it comes to the conclusion that the transfer order has been passed illegally, simultaneously it should give enough “play at the joints” to the Executive to transfer its own employees. Therefore, the observation made by the Tribunal that the respondents are free to transfer the petitioner on the ground of administrative exigency is merely to give the respondents a certain freedom, a “play at the joints”. The observation that the petitioner has been working at his present place of posting since 1996, does not reveal a new fact to the respondents as they themselves would be aware of the fact that the petitioner was, indeed, working at his present place of posting since 1996. Therefore, the learned counsel is not justified in claiming that prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the said observation. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-