1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1076/2008 Rameshwar Lal Choudhary Vs. Raj. Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order :: 21.4.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. M.C. Bhoot, for the petitioner/s. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Addl. Govt. Advocate. ... By this petition for writ validity of the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur is questioned. By the order aforesaid learned Tribunal rejected an appeal preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 31.7.2007 transferring him from Government Secondary School, No.2, Kuchaman to Government Secondary School, Gangawa, District- Nagaur. Learned Tribunal treated the appeal infructuous in view of the fact that the petitioner in compliance of the order of transfer joined the duties at transferred place. In quite a cursory manner the Tribunal also held that no foundation is available to substantiate the allegations of malafides. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal erred while treating the appeal infructuous on the count that the petitioner joined duties at transferred place. As per the petitioner no interim order was operating in his favour, therefore, he was having no option but to join at transferred place subject to final decision of the appeal, and on basis of that joining it can not be said that the cause of 2 action was not surviving. It is also asserted that the Tribunal while adjudicating an appeal should have considered all the facts pleaded. I have examined the order impugned. The order passed by the Tribunal is apparently bad as mere joining at the transferred place after filing the appeal in now manner makes the appeal infructuous. As a matter of fact the government servant was having no option after filing the appeal but to join at the transferred place as no interim order in his favour was in operation. The question of malafides has also not been dealt with by the Tribunal adequately. From memo of appeal it is apparent that specific allegations were made by the petitioner- appellant against the respondent No.3 and those were not controverted by any body. For such specific allegations the Tribunal should have issued a rule calling response from the persons against whom such allegations were levelled. For the reasons mentioned above this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 5.11.2007 is declared illegal, and therefore, same is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to consider an decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner (Appeal No.2489/2007) afresh. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal