CW 14569/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14569/09 Prahlad Raj Sanadhya Versus The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 07/12/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. G.S. Gill, for petitioner *** Petitioner who is holding the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer and it is not being disputed that from inception, he is in District Bhilwara, has now been transferred vide order dt.22nd October, 2009 [Ann.1] from Shahpura, Bhilwara to Sangod, (Kota) for administrative reason as depicts from the order impugned itself. Against which he preferred appeal before Appellate Tribunal, but was rejected on 16th November, 2009 [Ann.3]. Counsel submits that petitioner is going to retire in February, 2011 and number of posts are lying vacant in District Bhilwara. As such, present action of the respondents in no manner can be said to be in the interest of administration and learned Tribunal has failed to consider the submission made in right earnest while rejecting appeal vide order dt.16th November, 2009. CW 14569/09 [2] Submission made by Counsel is reiteration of what was submitted before Tribunal. Apart from it, merely because he is going to retire in February, 2011 that in no manner can be said to be a solitary ground for his retention at Bhilwara, particularly, in the facts of instant case when he remained posted from inception in District Bhilwara, which is his home District. The authority can always consider in the interest of administration, if required, to transfer even when there is short period available at his disposal while attaining age of superannuation. It is not the case where the petitioner has alleged any malice against the authority who has passed the order impugned and violation of statutory rules. Merely because other posts are available in District Bhilwara as alleged that will not give any right to the petitioner to seek his continuation against other available posts. It is always for the authority to take its decision and within limited scope of judicial review, this court would not like to interfere unless the order appears to have been passed with oblique motive or in violation of statutory rules. Learned Tribunal has examined material on CW 14569/09 [3] record and this court also find no manifest error being committed, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Counsel submits that atleast he may be permitted to make representation to the authority. He is always at liberty to make representation, if advised. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA14569CW09 7-12.doc