1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Dinesh Maru V/s. RAT Jaipur & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3074/2010 S.B. Civil Writ Petition Under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Judgment :: 10.03.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. V.K. Mathur for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.02.2010 passed by the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, whereby the learned Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that, in the year 1997, he was appointed on the post of Gram Sewak in District Churu. Subsequently, on 01.02.2006, he was transferred from Panchayat Samiti Ganganagar to Panchayat Samiti Sarda, in District Udaipur. On 30.06.2007, he was again transferred from Panchayat 2 Samiti Sarda to Panchayat Samiti Bhinder. But on his request he was again allowed to join his duties at Panchayat Samiti Sarda in District Udaipur. However, vide order dated 21.12.2009, he was again transferred from Sarda (Udaipur) to Kumbahalgarh, in District Rajsamand. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2009, he filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 21.01.2010, has dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. V.K. Mathur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the said transfer order is in violation of Rules 219 and 291 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996” ). Moreover, while the learned Tribunal has interfered in other cases with similar facts, it has refused to do so in the case petitioner's case. Heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. Rule 290 of the Rules of 1996 is as under :- 3 Rule 290. Transfer outside the district – (1) the name of the employee desiring transfer or desired to be transferred from one district to another shall be communicated to the Director by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad, as the case may be. (2) Posting by transfer of such an employee shall be made by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad concerned on the recommendation of the State Government against the vacant posts existing at such time. The State Government may transfer any member of service from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same district or outside it, from one Zila Parishad to another Zila Parishad, or from Panchayat Samiti to Zila Parishad or from a Zila Parishad to Panchayat Samiti and may also stay the operation of, or cancel, any order of transfer made under these rules. Chief Executive Officer or Vikas Adhikari concerned shall carry out such orders. (3) On transfer of an employee, his confidential roll and service record will be transmitted without avoidable delay to the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad to whom his services have been transferred.” According to the learned counsel, while transferring the petitioner, his confidential roll and the services record have not been transferred. Therefore, there is a clear-cut violation of Rule 290 of the Rules of 1996. However, this is a plea which is ill-founded as the respondents are free to transfer the petitioner's 4 confidential roll and service record even after the transfer order. Thus, the contention that the Rule 290 of the Rules of 1996, has been violated is without any merit. Rule 291 of the Rules of 1996 deals with the seniority on transfer and is as under :- “Rule 291. Seniority on transfer. - Seniority of an employee transferred outside the district, by the State Government under Sub-sec. (8-A) of Sec.89 shall be determined by the Committee of the District to which he is transferred :- (i) if the transfer is made on the request of the employee, his seniority shall be fixed at the bottom of the seniority list of the cadre to which he belongs; and (ii) if the transfer is made on administrative or other reasons, his seniority shall be fixed on the basis of his continuous length of substantive service on an analogous post.” Although the learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner's seniority would be adversely affected by the transfer order, yet he has not been able to place any evidence to establish this contention. Therefore, the contention is baseless. 5 Merely because, the learned Tribunal had interfered in the transfer order in other cases does not buttress the case of the petitioner that the learned Tribunal should also have interfered in his case. For, each case has to be decided individually on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, the third contention raised by the learned counsel is unacceptable. Being devoid of merit, the petition is, hereby, dismissed. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/