1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8207/2007. Raghunath Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 8th January 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. P.D. Bohra for Mr. Vikram Purohit, for the petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: The petitioner, working in the office of the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Sub- Division-I, Pokran on the post of Beldar on Sanvad Dudhiya Water Scheme having been transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, District Division, Jaisalmer under the order issued by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Circle Jaisalmer on 26.09.2007 (Annex.1), seeks to question his transfer order by way of this petition for writ. It is contended that the petitioner is a low paid employee getting a basic salary of Rs.3,200/- per month and has been transferred to a place 120 kms. away from the present place of posting without any administrative reason; that the transfer of the petitioner has been ordered despite a ban operating on such transfers under the orders issued by the State Government on 12.06.2007 and 13.07.2007 (Annex.2) only for political reasons. It is also stated that the representatives and 2 the residents of Gram Panchayat, Modardi and village Guddi have demanded before the Collector, Jaisalmer not to transfer the petitioner from the present place of posting and have submitted a representation on 15.10.2007 (Annex.3). During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner was posed the question about availability of alternative remedy of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal to which learned counsel responded with the submissions that at the relevant time, the Bench of the Tribunal concerned being not available at Jodhpur, for speedy remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court in extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission. It remains trite in law that, ordinarily, a challenge to the order of transfer is considered by the Court only on the grounds of mala fide or violation of any statutory requirement. No such case is made out; and there appears no reason to consider any interference in the impugned order. The impugned transfer order was issued on 26.09.2007 and the petitioner has chosen to prefer this writ petition only on 11.12.2007 without stating his status of posting at the time of 3 filing of the petition. Though, this Court is not convinced on the reasons stated on behalf of the petitioner for not availing the alternative remedy of appeal but, looking to the overall circumstances of the case, ignoring such aspect of alternative remedy, it appears appropriate to dispose of the matter in this writ petition rather than relegating the same for another round of litigation. The submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner, about his being a low paid employee and having been transferred to a place 120 Kms. away from the present place of posting, and about ban on transfers are not of the grounds of violation of any statutory requirement. As to which particular employee's services are requisite where and how the manpower is to be deployed are all the matters for consideration of the employer concerned. It has not been shown if there is any statutory prohibition in posting the petitioner at the place concerned. It has also not been shown if the so-called ban leads to any statutory prohibition wherefor the competent authority cannot place an employee like the petitioner on a particular work at a particular place in administrative exigency. Moreover, in relation to such grounds, nothing prevented the petitioner from making a proper representation to the authorities concerned for their consideration. In any event, no case of violation of any 4 statutory requirement is made out so as to warrant interference by the Court. The suggestions that the petitioner has been transferred without any administrative exigency remains vague and meritless. The impugned order specifically states that the petitioner has been posted to Jaisalmer for the management of Rural Water Schemes under the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, District Division, Jaisalmer. It is not the requirement of law that while issuing such transfer/posting order, the authority would be obliged to spell out in detail all the reasons for making the order. The suggestion of transfer having been made for political considerations is lacking in essential particulars of the persons upon whom the petitioner would choose to level such allegations; and such vague allegations hardly make out any case that the impugned order has been issued mala fide or on extraneous considerations. So far political interference is concerned, if at all, the record indicates the position otherwise. The petitioner would choose to rely on a so-called representation made by certain elected representatives and the residents of Gram Panchayat, Modardi and Gram Panchayat, Jaimla. By way of the said representation, it has been suggested to the Collector, Jaisalmer that the work of the petitioner was satisfactory and his transfer ought to be 5 cancelled else the villagers might be required to place 'Dharna' in front of his office. Without comments on the merits of the said representation, suffice is to say that transfer/posting of an employee is a matter essentially in the domain of the employer concerned; and the authorities cannot be faulted in the present case if they have ignored such representation as the one the petitioner would choose to reply upon. The petitioner has not shown himself having made any representation stating any grievance in explicit and specific terms. If the petitioner had any grievance to state, nothing prevented him from making a proper and definite representation. Merely relying on a representation like the one produced on record in the present case as Annexure-3, no case is made out for interference. The petition remains totally bereft of substance and is, therefore, rejected. A copy of this order be supplied to the Government Counsel appearing in this Court. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/