CWP 9053/2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9053/2009 Krishna Avtar Dixit Versus. The State of Rajasthan and ors. DATE OF ORDER : 11/11/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. RC Joshi, for petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Meena, GC ] Mr. Ashok Bansal ],for respondents. The matter has come up on an application filed by the contesting respondent No.4 for vacation of the interim order passed by this Court dt. 24/08/2009, however, looking to the nature of controversy involved, as agreed by counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided at this stage. The petitioner, who is holding the post of Head Master, was transferred vide order dated 04/10/2008 on his own request from Churu to District Education Cell in the Office of District Education Officer (Secondary)-Ist, Sikar. However, it appears that the contesting respondent No.4 on the date of passing of the order dt. 14/10/2008 was holding the said post in pursuance to order dated 18/12/2007 and subsequent order dt. 03/03/2008. It appears that immediately when this fact came to the notice of CWP 9053/2009 [2] the Authority about posting being held by the respondent No.4, the order of transfer of the petitioner dt. 04/10/2008 was cancelled and he was restored to continue at the place of posting as Churu vide order dated 10/10/2008. This was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was rejected on17/07/2009. Counsel for petitioner submits that once the petitioner had joined in pursuance to the order dt. 04/10/2008, the order could not have been cancelled by the respondents and the subsequent order dt. 10/10/2008 cancelling the order of transfer, which had already been executed by the petitioner, is arbitrary and cannot be said to be in the interest of administration. Counsel for petitioner further submits that the petitioner is working as Head Master and was transferred on equivalent post held by him and so far as the respondent No.4 is concerned, he is substantively holding the post of School Lecturer and he could not have been allowed to continue in District Education Cell. He further submits that copy of reply of the State Government, which has been taken note of by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned, was never served upon the petitioner and thus what CWP 9053/2009 [3] has been observed by the learned Tribunal is in violation of principles of natural justice. It will be relevant to mention that while passing the interim order by this Court, it was one of the submissions made by the petitioner that despite service neither any counsel appeared nor any reply was filed by the State Government before the Tribunal but still the learned Tribunal has referred to the averments of the State Government in its order which was taken note of by this Court while passing interim order but it appears that the reply was filed by the State Government and the certified copy of the same has been placed for perusal. Counsel for respondents, while supporting the findings recorded by the Tribunal, submits that the subsequent order dt. 10/10/2008 is in fact a corrigendum issued by the Authority only when this fact came to its notice that the post, on which the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 04/10/2008, was already held by the respondent No.4 and accordingly the modification was made and apart from it, this being an exigency of service which arose before the Authority, no error was committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. CWP 9053/2009 [4] It is not for this Court to examine the status held by the petitioner as also the respondent No.4 but the fact remains that the petitioner was transferred on his own request from Churu to Sikar vide order dated 04/10/2008 and vide later order dt. 10/10/2008 it was cancelled and as a consequence whereof he was allowed to continue at the place of posting at Churu and this fact has also come on record that the post on which the petitioner was transferred was already held by the respondent No.4 and document to this effect has been placed on record dt. 18th December, 2007 passed by the Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner as also the subsequent order posting the respondent No. 4 in District Education Cell in the office of the District Education Officer (Secondary) Ist, Sikar vide order dated 03/03/2008 and after these facts came to the notice of the authority about the post being held by the respondent NO.4, passed order dt. 10/10/2008 cancelling its order dt. 04/10/2008 it can not be said to be in arbitrary exercise of powers which may require any interference. The petitioner has not alleged any malice against the authority who has passed the order impugned or violation of statutory rules, if CWP 9053/2009 [5] any. Apart from above, no inconvenience can be said to have been caused to the petitioner as the position was restored by the subsequent order dt. 10/10/2008. The learned Tribunal has also examined the material on record and found no justification to interfere in the matter. This Court finds no manifest error in the order passed by the learned Tribunal which may call for interference. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The interim order dt. 24/08/2009 stands vacated. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/9053-CW-2009--final.doc