1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.9687/2006. : : Chandra Shekhar Parashar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 18.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Vikrant Gupta for petitioner. Mr. Anand Singh Rajawat for Mr. R.P.Singh, AAG. Mr. Dharmendra Jain for respondent No.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order of his transfer dated 25.7.2006 by which his earlier transfer order dated 15.7.2006 was cancelled and he was transferred from the Office of Senior Town Planner, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer to the Office of Chief Town Planner, Headquarter, Jaipur. Petitioner has also challenged order dated 6.12.2006 of Rajasthan Civil Service Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur whereby his appeal was dismissed. 3. Grievance of petitioner is that ever since he was promoted on the post of Deputy Town Planner, respondents have subjected him to frequent transfers. He was vide order 2 dated 1.6.2006 transferred from the post of Deputy Town Planner, UIT, Ajmer to the post of Deputy Town Planner in the Officer of Chief Town Planner, Jaipur within a month thereof. Petitioner was serving on deputation with UIT, Ajmer and on expiry of period of deputation of five years, respondents vide order dated 1.6.2006 directed him to report back to his parent department at Chief Town Planer, Jaipur. It was thereafter by order dated 28.6.2006 he was posted as Deputy Town Planner, Alwar Region, Alwar, but already one Subhash Goyal was posted at this post and had recently joined on 26.6.2006, therefore, the petitioner was not allowed to join at Alwar. Petitioner by application dated 1.7.2006 submitted this fact and request that he should be posted back at Ajmer. The Government by order dated 15.7.2006 posted petitioner as Deputy Town Planner, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer and transferred respondent No.3 from that place to RUIDP, Jaipur. Petitioner joined at UIT, Ajmer on 17.7.2006. The Government however subsequently by order dated 25.7.2006 cancelled the transfer of respondent No.3 and directed that he shall continue to work at Ajmer in his old posting as Deputy Town Planner, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer and transferred petitioner back to the Office of Chief Town Planner, Headquarter, Jaipur. 3 This Court while issuing notices of writ petition passed an ad interim order dated 11.12.2006 staying operation of the transfer order in the following terms :- “Petitioner was posted to Ajmer vide order dated 15.7.2006, that order was modified vide impugned order dated 25.7.2006. In the impugned order no reasons for modification have been shown. The consequence that the petitioner has been again shifted to Jaipur and the respondent No.3 to Ajmer who during his service has remained almost 17 to 18 years at Ajmer out of his total service of 22 years. He appears to be most wanted at Ajmer. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks. Meanwhile the operation of the impugned orders dated 25.7.2006 and 6.12.2006 shall remain stayed till next date. 4. Shri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once when petitioner was transferred to Ajmer and joined at that place on 17.7.2006, his transfer order was illegally changed within a week so as to accommodate respondent No.3. It is submitted that respondent No.3 has throughout his service career remained posted at Ajmer so much so that out of total service career of 22 years, he for almost 18 years has remained posted at Ajmer only. It 4 was submitted that petitioner has two daughters of marriageable age and one major son. Besides, his wife was not keeping good health. The order of transfer dated 15.7.2006 was already acted upon with the joining of petitioner on 17.7.2006. It was cancelled on 25.7.2006 and fresh order of transfer was issued on 25.7.2006, at a time when Government had imposed ban on making transfer. There was thus no administrative exigency and that the impugned order of transfer was passed in colourable exercise of power and with a view to accommodating respondent No.3. Learned counsel submitted that Tribunal has failed to appreciate all these aspects, therefore, impugned orders dated 25.7.2006 and 6.12.2006 be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the writ petition and especially respondent No.3 asserting that a Government employee is liable to be transferred at any time in routine due to administrative exigency and no employee can insist to continue at a particular place of posting. It was submitted that Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. It was submitted that petitioner was transferred in administrative exigency and the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with transfer order for the reason of 5 personal difficulty and inconvenience. It was submitted that impugned order was not an order modifying the earlier order of transfer, but fresh order of transfer was issued thereby. It was submitted that petitioner has already completed maximum period of five years of his deputation in UIT, Ajmer, therefore, he could not be posted again at the same place. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that petitioner, who had earlier remained posted with UIT, Ajmer on deputation of five years, completed maximum period of deputation. More than two years and three months have gone by since the interim order passed by this Court on 11.12.2006. The Government has freedom to post its employee in exigency of service anywhere its like. Petitioner cannot insist on continuing at Ajmer and for that matter any other place of his choice, but in the peculiar facts of the present case, at the same time it is evident that respondent No.3 has served his entire service career at Ajmer and from the Chart produced in para No.7 of the writ petition, factually contents whereof have not been disputed even by the respondents, whenever respondent No.3 was transferred outside Ajmer, it was only for few months and eventually he came to be posted back at Ajmer. The transfer of 6 course is meant to be made in exigencies of service, but at the same time, allowing an Officer at the one place for such a length of time gives rise to vested rights and thereby affects efficiency of service in an adverse manner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus clearly evident that both the petitioner and respondent No.2 have had preference for stay at Ajmer only, which is a writ large from the fact that respondent No.3 also was posted at UIT, Ajmer within 10 days of passing of order of transfer of petitioner it is already acted upon and petitioner had joined the same. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to respondents to pass fresh order of transfer posting the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 anywhere it likes, but the Government in doing so, in the interest of administrative exigency, should keep in mind that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.3 is posted at Ajmer when both of whom are insisting to stay at Ajmer. Interim order dated 11.12.2006 shall continue till such time the Government passes fresh order of transfer. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.99. 7