1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: O R D E R :: Moti Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8209/2007. Date of Order :: 18th January 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Hemant Dutt, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, working on the post of Patwari, seeks to challenge the order dated 25.10.2007 (Annex.14) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur rejecting his appeal (No.2537/2007) against the order dated 04.10.2007 (Annex.13) posting him to Patwar Halka, Rajera in Tehsil Bikaner and retaining the respondent No.3 at Patwar Halka, Husangsar, the place whereto the petitioner was earlier transferred under the order dated 31.07.2007 (Annex.3) but was not handed over the charge by the respondent No.3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner with chronology of events, as averred in the writ petition, is that earlier he was working as Patwari in Tehsil Pugal and then was transferred on 15.09.2005 to Patwar Mandal, Dharmas, Tehsil Dungargarh; that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from cancer and, therefore, he 2 moved an application for transfer to Bikaner Tehsil as it was necessary for him to remain at District Headquarter for her proper treatment; that considering the request, the petitioner was transferred by the order dated 31.07.2007 (Annex.3) from Patwar Mandal, Dharmas (Dungargarh) to Husangsar (Bikaner); that in pursuance of the said transfer order, the petitioner submitted his joining report in the office of the Tehsildar (Land Records), Bikaner on 04.08.2007 (Annex.4); that the said Tehsildar asked the respondent No.3 to hand over charge to the petitioner; that the petitioner was not handed over charge and hence, made requests to the Tehsildar on 13.08.2007 (Annex.6) and 20.08.2007 (Annex.7) for delivering charge; that the Inspector (Land Records), who was directed by the Tehsildar for submitting report in relation to handing over of charge by the respondent No.3, stated in his report dated 24.08.2007 (Annex.8) of the respondent No.3 seeking some time to hand over charge and then, being not found even at his residence; that the Tehsildar directed the said Inspector (Land Records) under the communication dated 24.08.2007 (Annex.9) for getting the charge handed over to the petitioner but the Inspector (Land Records) again informed the Tehsildar on 25.08.2007 (Annex.10) of the respondent No.3 not handing over the charge; that the Tehsildar (Land Records) issued an order dated 25.08.2007 (Annex.11) with reference to the order No.4081 dated 31.07.2007 issued by the Collector (Land Records), Bikaner and ordered relieving of the respondent No.3 3 and directed him to join the duties before the Tehsildar, Chhatargarh; that the petitioner again informed the Tehsildar on 31.08.2007 (Annex.12) that he had not been able to assume charge. The petitioner has stated the grievance that instead of forcing the respondent No.3 to hand over the charge and instead of taking disciplinary action again him for not handing over charge despite repeated directions, the respondent No.2, the Collector (Land Records), Bikaner proceeded to issue an order on 04.10.2007 (Annex.13) whereby the petitioner was transferred from Husangsar to Rajera while the respondent No.3 was retained on deputation at Husangsar only. The petitioner contends with reference to the aforesaid facts and circumstances that he has been subjected to face transfer within two months of the earlier transfer only at the instance of respondent No.3; and has alleged that the respondent No.3 having political approach and influence could repeatedly avoid compliance of the orders issued by the higher authorities. The petitioner has stated further that being aggrieved of the action on the part of the respondents, he preferred an appeal before the Tribunal but the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the same on 25.10.2007 (Annex.14). Assailing the orders aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's wife is suffering from cancer and after considering his request, the petitioner was 4 transferred by the order dated 31.07.2007 but could not join only because the respondent No.3 defied the orders and did not hand over charge. Learned counsel submitted that it was in the knowledge of the authorities concerned that the respondent No.3 defied their orders with impunity but instead of taking action against him, it has been wholly unjustified on the part of the respondents to transfer the petitioner to another place; and the impugned order cannot be said to have been issued in any administrative exigency but has apparently been issued in order to accommodate the respondent No.3; and the Tribunal has been in error in summarily rejecting the appeal without taking into consideration the essential facts. Though, at the first look, the grievance of the petitioner does not appear entirely unjustified; but, in the overall comprehension of the facts and circumstances and the law applicable to the case, this Court is not persuaded to consider any interference in writ jurisdiction. The Collector (Land Records), Bikaner, while issuing the order dated 04.10.2007 (Annex.13) has observed that looking to the requirement of 18th Cattle Census, Agriculture Census, 4th Minor Irrigation Census and 'Gasht Girdawari', the deputation of respondent No.3 at Patwar Halka, Husangsar be continued and the petitioner be placed on deputation at Patwar Halka, Rajera of Tehsil Bikaner. If in the administrative exigency, the authority concerned has chosen to pass the order on 04.10.2007 to retain 5 the respondent No.3 at Husangsar only and to place the petitioner at Rajera within Tehsil Bikaner, the exercise cannot be said to be illegal or unauthorised or wanting in reasonableness. The petitioner has referred to the ailment of his wife with reference to the medical reports (Annexs. 1 & 2) and has averred that he was posted to Husangsar by the order dated 31.07.2007 after considering his request. From the fact that he was transferred from Dharmas (Dungargarh) to Husangsar (Bikaner) at request, it is clear that the authorities concerned have been considerate towards the petitioner. It is borne out from the record that the respondent No.3 had been transferred to Chhatargarh by another order issued on 31.07.2007 bearing No.4081 but he seems not to have relinquished the charge at Husangsar; and on the other hand, the petitioner was relieved from his earlier place of posting at Dharmas (Dungargarh) and presented himself before Tehsildar, Land Records, Bikaner on 04.08.2007. Even if it be assumed that there was an impasse created for the respondent No.3 not relinquishing charge and for the petitioner having already been relieved from Dharmas, ultimately as to how the administrative exigencies were to be met and who should be posted where was a matter for consideration of the Collector concerned; and he cannot be faulted in issuing the order dated 04.10.2007 with reference to the administrative requirements at Husangsar and for accommodating the petitioner within Tehsil Bikaner at Rajera. 6 Whether any action is requisite against respondent No.3 or not again remains essentially a matter for consideration of the authorities concerned and the petitioner does not appear justified in suggesting as if the order dated 31.07.2007 could not have been modified by the authorities or that he could not have been posted to any other place. The Tribunal has rightly observed that in relation to any personal difficulty, the petitioner ought to have made proper representation before the authorities concerned. It need be reiterated that, according to the showing of the petitioner himself, he had been transferred on 31.07.2007 at request. Even by way of the impugned order dated 04.10.2007, the petitioner has been posted within Tehsil Bikaner only, of course to a different Patwar Mandal. It cannot be said that the authorities have not been considerate towards the petitioner. If any other personal difficulty remains with the petitioner, nothing prevents him from still making a representation to the authorities concerned and it cannot be assumed that the authorities would turn a blind eye to his representation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there does not appear any reason to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. Mohan/ (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.