1 50 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997/2007 Phoosa Ram Vs. State & ors. Date of Order ::27th August 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.L.D.Khatri for the petitioner The petitioner, working on the post of Panchayat Prasar Adhikari, has filed this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur rejecting his Appeal (No.1362/2007) against the transfer order dated 31.07.2007. The petitioner questioned his transfer order dated 31.07.2007 (Annex. 6 herein) with the submissions that the same had been made in order to extend undue advantage to the private respondent; and that the order was improper and contrary to the transfer policy of the Government for having been made within 18 days of earlier transfer. The Tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has come to the conclusion that the order has not been made to accommodate the private respondent but has been made for administrative reasons. The Tribunal was also of the opinion that the policy was directory in nature and cannot be enforced, and yet, if the appellant-petitioner had any 2 grievance, he ought to have made representation to the authorities seeking appropriate relief. With observation that the transfer was a normal incident of service and petitioner was holding a transferable post; and there was no right in the petitioner to seek posting at a particular place; and the order cannot be said to be vitiated for any malafide, the Tribunal has proceeded to reject the appeal. Questioning the order of transfer and the order made by the Tribunal, it has been strenuously contended by learned counsel Mr. L.D.Khatri appearing for the petitioner that the order of transfer has obviously been made in order to accommodate private respondent Shri Girdhari Ram and there does not appear any administrative exigency for which the petitioner was shifted just after 18 days of his previous transfer order. Having given thoughtful consideration to the matter and having examined the record; this Court is clearly of opinion that no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. From the material placed on the record it is noticed that the petitioner was transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Sam, (Jaisalmer) to Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer by the order dated 07.07.2007 (Annex.1); and it appears that the petitioner was relieved on 11.07.2007 and joined at Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer 3 on 13.07.2007 (Annex.5). However, by the impugned order dated 31.07.2007 the petitioner has been sent from Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer to Shergarh; and it appears that the respondent No.5 Girdhari Ram has been posted again at Zila Parishad Jaisalmer. However, for this reason alone that the petitioner was earlier transferred in place of the respondent No.5 Girdhari Ram and by the subsequent order, the said respondent is again posted at Zila Parishad Jaisalmer, it cannot ipso facto be deduced that the transfer order has been made only in order to accommodate the respondent No.5 Girdhari Ram; and further, even if it be assumed that the request of the respondent No.5 has also been taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the order is vitiated from the vice of mala fide or for violation of any statutory provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 1991 SC 532 has held,- “If the competent authority issued transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered by the court merely because the transfer order were passed on the request of the employees concerned.” Noticeable it is that by the order impugned 28 incumbents have been transferred. Of course, the order states that only 8 of them would be entitled for travelling allowance 4 and joining period but even from this fact it cannot be said that all the administrative exigencies have not been taken into consideration. So far, the guidelines are concerned again; the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas: AIR 1993 SC 2444 has pointed out that the guidelines do not confer upon the Government employee any legally enforceable right; and as to who should be transferred where is the matter for appropriate authority to decide. The Tribunal has taken all the facts and circumstance of the case into account and has found the case not worth interference and there does not appear any reason to take any different view in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.