S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6327/2007 (Kalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 5th October 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Trilok Joshi, for the petitioner By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, working as Head Constable (M.T.) with the respondents, seeks to question the order dated 06.03.2007 (Annex.2) whereby he has been transferred from Hanumangarh to Bikaner; and the order dated 22.08.2007 (Annex.3) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dismissing his appeal (No.145/2007) 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 without any administrative exigency and only for the purpose of accommodating one Shri Jhabar Singh who was earlier ordered to be transferred to Bikaner but his transfer order has been cancelled by the impugned order and, in his place, the petitioner has shunted out to Bikaner though the fact remains that the petitioner came to be posted at Hanumangarh from Sriganganagar on being promoted to the post of Head Constable (M.T.) by the order dated 02.10.2005 only. 1 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. 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. The petitioner has given challenge to the transfer order essentially on the ground that the same has been made only in order to accommodate one Shri Jhabar Singh while canceling his transfer order. The allegations so made and contentions so urged deserve to be ignored for the fundamental reason that the petitioner has chosen not to implead the said Shri Jhabar Singh a party to this litigation. It does not appear from the order passed by the learned Tribunal if the said incumbent was impleaded a party respondent before the Tribunal; and he has not been impleaded as party to this writ petition either. The allegations as sought to the made by the petitioner cannot be enquired into in absence of the said incumbent; and the petition fails on this fundamental shortcoming. Even otherwise, an order made for the purpose of accommodating another cannot be pronounced as illegal or 2 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.” It is true that the petitioner was earlier promoted as Head Constable (M.T.) and posted at Hanumangarh in pursuance of the order dated 02.10.2005 and then, the impugned order was made on 06.03.2007; 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 results in unnecessary harassment of the employee without regard to the administrative exigencies. Ultimately, as to who should be transferred where is the matter for the appropriate authority to decide as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L.Abbas Vs. Union of India: AIR 1993 SC 2444. The Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. There is no ground for interference. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. 3 4