1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :::: O R D E R Jeeva Ram & Ors. Vs. Sate of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3258/2002 UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. DATE OF ORDER :: 18th September, 2006 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.R.S. Saluja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rameshwar Dave, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents. BY THE COURT In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 07.02.2001 whereby they were declared surplus and have also challenged the consequential order dated 11.07.2001 whereby they were given fresh posting in different departments. These orders have been challenged mainly on the ground that the action of the respondents in declaring the 2 petitioners surplus suffered from the vice or arbitrariness and non-application of mind as also was discriminatory in nature. The petitioner has placed on record the chart prepared by the office of Executive Engineer, Sumerpur and has argued that total strength of the post of Baildars under Executive Engineer, Sumerpur was 66 against which only 33 persons were working and therefore order declaring the petitioners surplus was bad in law. The petitioners have also relied on the order dated 21.07.2001 passed by the Executive Engineer, Pali and has argued that after the petitioners were declared surplus as many as eight Baildars were posted by this order in Irrigation Divisions, Pali which proves that the vacant posts were still available with the respondents. I have considered the arguments advanced by Shri R.S. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rameshwar Dave, learned Dy. Government Advocate and perused the record. The first argument raised by the petitioner has no substance because the statement Annexure-3 indicates the strength of 66 Baildars under the column of required strength for 2001-2002. The next column thereafter pertains to the actual 3 working strength as on 01.08.2001 which has been indicated as 33 whereas the last column indicates the extra required strength which is again 33. The required strength therefore cannot be taken as a available post as such. In regard to the other argument based on the order dated 21.07.2001, it may be stated that on being required, the learned Dy. Government Advocate has placed on record the order dated 11.07.2001 passed by Chief Engineer pursuant to which the consequential order was passed by Additional Chief Engineer on 19.07.2001 and Superintending Engineer on 20.07.2001. The reference of these orders has been made in the aforesaid order dated 21.07.2001. In fact the order dated 11.07.2001 placed on record by the learned Dy. Government Advocate categorically stated that the transfer of the employees whose names were mentioned in the order dated 21.07.2001 was being made alongwith several others and this was by way of administrative exigency with certain employees were transferred from one Division from another but all of them were transferred along with the post which they were occupying. It would thus be evident that their transfer to office of Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Pali was made along with the post. This further belies the contention of the petitioner that inspite of post being available they were wrongly declared surplus. 4 In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [MOHAMMAD RAFIQ],J. Ashwini/-