1 108 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5246/2007 Dr.Subhash Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 27th August 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Dr.P.S Bhati, for the petitioner This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2007 (Annex.7) made by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur rejecting the appeal (No. 1344/2007) filed by the petitioner, serving in Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Rajasthan, questioning his transfer order dated 31.07.2007 (Annex.3) whereby he had been transferred from Bikaner to Sema, Rajsamand. The Tribunal has noticed the submission of the petitioner that he had been transferred after a short interval as he was posted at the present place at his request only on 15.09.2006; that his wife is also in government employment and as per the policy of the government, as far as possible both the spouse ought to be placed at the same place or near about; that nobody else has been posted in his place and there cannot be said to be any administrative exigency in the matter; and the petitioner has various personal problems. The Tribunal has not accepted the contentions made on behalf of 2 the petitioner; and observed that the petitioner was holding a transferable post and it was for the administration to decide as to which employee should be posted where. In relation to the policy, the Tribunal observed that the policy was directory in nature and has no legal effect; and it was also noticed that the petitioner had remained posted in Bikaner District for quite long. The Tribunal has found no case for interference for the transfer order being neither mala fide nor suffering from any legal infirmity. Learned counsel Dr. P.S.Bhati, arguing for the petitioner has strenuously contended with reference to transfer policy issued by the Department concerned on 05.07.2007 (Annex.5) that the Department had decided not to transfer anybody who was on the present place of the posting for two years or less nor any such proposal be sent; and, according to learned counsel, the policy in question is meant for compliance and adherence and the transfer made in violation of such policy deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel further submitted that it has also been the declared policy of the government to put the spouse at one place of posting and before transferring the petitioner the fact that his wife was posted at Bikaner has not been taken into consideration; that the post remains vacant and then, the petitioner has personal difficulties including illness of his child. In all these 3 circumstances, according to learned counsel, the order of transfer deserves to be quashed. Having given thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that no case for interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. So far the policy of government is concerned, suffice it to say that such policy or guidelines do not confer upon the government employee any legally enforceable right. Merely because the petitioner has been transferred from his present place before two years of posting, it cannot be said that the transfer order has been made in violation of any statutory provision. Similarly, merely because the wife of the petitioner is posted at the particular place that does not invest the petitioner with any indefeasible right to continue at the same place of posting. Ultimately, as to who should be transferred where is the matter for the appropriate authority to decide as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L.Abbas Vs. Union of India: AIR 1993 SC 2444. It has been contended that nobody else has been posted vice the petitioner. This again is a matter for authorities concerned to decide as to which particular post is to be manned by whom; and as to how the manpower is to 4 be deployed. The petitioner holds a transferable post, and this Court is clearly of opinion that in such matters of transfer, the order could be interfered with only if same is vitiated from either mala fide or violation of any statutory provision. In relation to the personal difficulties including illness of child, nothing prevented the petitioner from making a proper representation to the authority concerned, and it cannot be assumed that the authority would have turned a blind eye to the representation, if so made. The Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. There is no ground for interference. This writ petition remains bereft of substance and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. s.soni