1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7811/09 Mahendra Kumar Sharma vs. RCSA Tribunal & Ors. Date of order : 8/7/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashok Bansal for the petitioner. Shri Ganesh Meena, Govt. Counsel for State. Dr. Shaugat Roy for the respondent. ****** Issue notice. Shri Ganesh Meena accepts notice on behalf of State. Dr. Shaugat Roy appears for respondent no.4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This case is a classic example of how in transfer disputes, the government servants who are insisting on their continued posting at one particular place have been litigating before this Court and how this Court and the Tribunal were led into passing contradictory orders at their instance. Initially in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal by order dated 15.11.08 directed him to make a representation to the government, which was to decide such representation within two months and pending disposal of such representation, operation of earlier orders 2 dated 9.10.08 and 13.10.08 whereby petitioner was kept APO and posted at Jagsinghpura respectively, was stayed. Subsequently when the petitioner was pending disposal of the representation was posted in Settlement Department by order dated 25.2.09, operation of this transfer order was stayed by the Service Tribunal in appeal of the respondent no.4 on 9.3.05. Resultant effect was that the petitioner continued at Mahuwa. The appeal of the petitioner is still pending before the Tribunal. It so happened that the respondent no.4 Chaman Lal Meena, who was earlier working at Basva by vide order dated 27.2.09 posted at Mahuwa in compliance of the interim order passed by the Tribunal in appeal of the petitioner dated 9.3.09 till disposal of the writ petition. Subsequently, the order dated 25.2.09 was cancelled by the government by order dated 19.3.09, as a result of which the petitioner continued at Mahuwa but in the meantime the respondent no.4 was already been posted at Mahuwa by order dated 17.2.09. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.09, he approached the Tribunal, but the 3 Tribunal was not functioning therefore he filed the writ petition. This Court granted a limited stay for duration of a month with liberty to the respondent no.4 to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal has now by impugned order dated 6.4.09 further extended that interim order with the result that respondent no.4 has now been allowed to continue at Mahuwa. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order raising the grievance that he was not made a party before the Tribunal and that in appeal filed by the respondent no.4, he was not provided opportunity of hearing. It appears that both the petitioner and respondent no.4 both are insisting on their continuation at Mahuwa. The appeals filed by both of them are pending before the Tribunal. It is neither in the interest of service nor in public interest that work of the important office like that of Tehsildar should suffer for the sake of those who are not willing to serve elsewhere and want to continue at a particular place of their choice only. Having regard to the facts of the case, 4 Board of Revenue is directed to pass a fresh order of posting of the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 at any place other than Mahuwa within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer for compliance. The appeals preferred by both the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 before the Service Tribunal would be treated as disposed of in the light of the direction so issued by this Court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/