CW-15386/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15386/2010 Khagendra Nath Vs. Raj. Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Date Of Order :: 29/11/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal, for petitioner. The petitioner who is working as a Teacher after remained posted for almost three years since October,2007 at place Kaman on being transferred to Nagar at a distance of 50 kms as alleged vide order dt.26.09.2010 preferred appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed on 11.11.2010. Counsel submits that his wife is also serving as a Teacher in Kaman in nearby educational institution and there is a policy of the Government that husband and wife should not ordinarily be disturbed and his ailing mother is also residing with him and in such circumstances, the action of the respondents in passing of the order impugned cannot be said to be in the interest of administration. By passage of time, mothers of serving employees obviously become old-aged and such difficulties are faced by every employee and as regards posting of husband and wife at the same station, it is always for the government to consider to post the spouse at same station CW-15386/10 (2) or at nearby station as far as possible. However, petitioner indisputably having served since October,2007 for almost three years has been transferred at nearby place at a distance of 50 kms as alleged which is in conformity of the policy of the Government. Apart from it, transfers are incidence of service and one cannot claim lien to continue at one station for indefinite period. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he has imputed malice against the authority who has passed the order impugned or violation of statutory of rules. The learned Tribunal after taking note of settled principles laid down by the Apex Court dismissed the appeal preferred by him. This Court also does not find any manifest error being committed while passing the order impugned. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi),J VS Shekhawat /p.2/ 15386cw10Nov26FnlDsps.doc