1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4634/2007. Harji Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 10th September 2007. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Deepak Nehra, for the petitioner. ... By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk working with the Water Resources Department, seeks to question the order dated 28.04.2007 (Annex.3) whereby he has been transferred from Sub-Division Bali to Sub-Division Sumerpur; and the order dated 16.08.2007 (Annex.4) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dismissing his appeal (No.1598/2007) 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 under political influence without any administrative exigency and only for the purpose of accommodating the respondent No.3 Fateh Ram Solanki; and that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers inasmuch as he joined at Bali only two months back in pursuance of the order dated 15.02.2007 (Annex.1) in place of the said respondent No.3. Learned counsel has precisely referred to the endorsement of the impugned order dated 28.04.2007 to the 2 Deputy Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office with reference to his U.O. Note dated 05.03.2007; and submitted with reference to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Satya Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: WLR 1992 (S) Raj 317 that such transfers made with reference to the U.O. Note have been quashed by this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has been in error in not considering the contentions of the petitioner in their proper perspective. 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. The decision in Satya Narayan's case (supra) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be read in the context of the significant fact that the said one was a case of transfer of a Patwari; and such transfer of a Patwari is governed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957; and in relation to the said Rules, this Court has laid down the law in no uncertain terms that the power to transfer a Patwari could be exercised only by the Collector concerned. In the case of Kishan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.871/2006, decided on 24.01.2007, this Court has held,- 3 “Under the Rules, power to transfer patwaries have been conferred specifically on Collector of District, where transfers are to be made from one Patwar Circle to another within the District. The circumstances and manner in which a patwari is to be transferred have also been prescribed by the rules. The importance of continuity of patwari at the place in the interest of maintenance of land records is too obviously reflected in provision that even when he is transferred to other circle, the transfer orders does not become effective until the concerned patwari has completed the record in hand. Where a statute provides the authority who has to act on conditions under which he has to act, such action can be taken only by such authority and on fulfillment of conditions under which he has been authorised to act, is a principle so well ingrained in system that it needs hardly any elaboration. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not a case of merely allowing the restoration of illegality but allowing the illegal action taken by the Collector at the behest of Ministry of Revenue which had no business to act in derogation of law. If the rule of law prevails in respect of citizen, it also governs the action of the Government authorities and the persons in power. No one is above law howsoever high he may be. The law does not permits any other authority than prescribed under the Rules to usurp that power and subject the statutory authority to act under their dictates”. In the case of Satya Narayan (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench has found that the Collector, Sriganganagar who issued the impugned order on the basis of U.O. Note, did not examine administrative exigency for transferring the said Patwari and he surrendered his discretion to the directions given. The said case 4 obviously cannot be read as laying down an absolute proposition that whenever the transfer order is endorsed with reference to a U.O. Note, the same is required to be treated as mala fide or unauthorized. In the present case, merely because the order dated 28.04.2007 has been endorsed to the Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister with reference to his U.O. Note dated 05.03.2007, it cannot be concluded that the order of transfer has not been made in administrative exigency nor could it be said that the order has been made at the instance of an authority or functionary who has no role in the administration at all. 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 accommodation of respondent No.3 is concerned, an order made for the purpose of accommodating another cannot be pronounced as illegal or bad on that count alone as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 1991 SC 532 that,- “If the competent authority issued transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered by the court merely because the transfer order were passed on the request of the employees concerned.” 5 It is true that the petitioner was earlier transferred on 15.02.2007 and the impugned order was made on 28.04.2007 but, in the administrative set up of the respondents, it cannot be said from this fact alone that the case is of such frequent transfers that result in unnecessary harassment of the employee without regard to the administrative exigencies. Moreover, in the present case, the order of transfer was made as back as on 28.04.2007 and the Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on 16.08.2007 after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and finding that the impugned transfer order did not suffer from any illegality. There appears no reasonable cause to issue any writ, order, or direction in this case. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/