CW 10294/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.10294/2009 Bharat Joshi Versus Sukhpal & Ors. Date of Order ::: 26/08/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. AC Upadhyay, for petitioner Mr. Shree Swami, for respondent-1 (caveator). Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.17/08/09 whereby Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur while allowing Appeal-2041/2008, set aside the order dt.02/09/08 (Ann.2) by which transfer of petitioner vide order dt.28/06/08 (Ann.1) from Government Poddar Sr. Secondary School, Jaipur (“Poddar School”) to Geejgarh (Dausa) vice respondent NO.1 was cancelled. Petitioner & respondent NO.1 both are working as School Lecturer and respondent No.1 after having worked for five years and remained posted outside district Jaipur at Geejgarh (Dausa) from the date of his appointment, submitted application to the authority for his transfer - taking note whereof, vide order dt.28/06/2008 (Ann.1) respondent No.1 at his own request was transferred vice petitioner - in pursuance whereof, after relieving from Geejgarh on CW 10294/09 //2// 04/07/08, respondent NO.1 joined at the place of his posting as School Lecturer at Poddar School, Jaipur on 05/07/08. It appears from the record that after passing of his transfer, obviously being aggrieved, petitioner made representation to the authority and his transfer order dt. 28/06/08 was cancelled vide order dt. 02/09/08 (Ann.2). But one fact having come on record that in pursuance of his transfer order dt.28/06/08, atleast petitioner has not reported for duty at the place of his posting at Geejgarh (Dausa). As a result of cancellation of transfer, respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal by way of appeal wherein initially the Tribunal granted interim stay in his favour and taking note of material on record, finally allowed the appeal vide judgment dt.17/08/09 while holding that once respondent No.1 had joined the post in pursuance of order of transfer, the same could not have been cancelled. However, the State Govt. is always at liberty to pass a fresh order if exigency requires. The Tribunal placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Gangaram Vishnoi Vs. State (1994 WLR 537), Narpat Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State (1991(S) WLR CW 10294/09 //3// Raj.136) and Rajendra Singh Vs. State (2006(1) WLC (Raj.) 486). Being aggrieved by judgment of the Tribunal the petitioner has preferred instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that on representation having been made by petitioner, the authority was satisfied and taking note whereof, his transfer order was cancelled vide order dt.02/09/08; and judgments on which the Tribunal placed reliance, are not applicable in the facts of instant case since in all the judgments relied upon, applicant alone was transferred and none was transferred vice him; while in instant case, it is vice versa transfer and if one has joined while at the same time if someone is aggrieved thereby, that can always be considered in the interest of administration. However, very premise on which the Tribunal set aside the cancellation order dt.02/09/08 is not legally sustainable. Per contra, Counsel for respondent NO.1 submits that the tribunal has examined material on record and placing reliance upon decisions of this Court has interfered in the order impugned which does not call for interference by this Court in a limited scope of judicial review in such like transfer CW 10294/09 //4// matter. I have considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. On a specific question put to Counsel for petitioner, as informed, the petitioner has worked in Government Poddar School, Jaipur for almost 8-10 years on the date of his transfer vide order dt.28/06/08 (Ann.1) while at the same time, respondent No.1 who too belongs to district Jaipur, but as per material on record, and as his Counsel informed, was never posted in Jaipur district and at Geejgarh (Dausa), he worked as School Lecturer for last five years since the date of his appointment and only because of his family circumstances, he made representation which was considered by the authority and taking note whereof, was transferred vide order dt.28/06/08 (Ann.1) to Poddar School, Jaipur vice petitioner at his own request. As regards cancellation of his transfer vide order dt.02/09/08, it was certainly passed much after respondent NO.1 joined at the place of his transfer pursuant to order dt.28/06/08. The learned Tribunal has basically examined order dt.02/09/08 on the premise of CW 10294/09 //5// judgments of this Court. But that apart, transfers are otherwise always passed in the interest of administration or exigency of service. Petitioner otherwise having remained posted for almost 8-10 years at one station viz., in Poddar School, Jaipur; while at the same time, at his own, respondent No.1 was transferred vice petitioner, inasmuch as pursuant to transfer, respondent NO.1 joined at Jaipur on 05/07/08 and order impugned regarding cancellation was passed on 02/09/08. Judgments on which the Tribunal placed reliance, are certainly applicable to the facts of instant case (supra) but this Court also takes notice of the fact that even in the reply, respondent authority made a vague averment that State Government examined representation filed by petitioner and on its appreciation, his transfer was cancelled. But it was expected from the State Government to disclose justification before the Tribunal, which prevailed upon for passing order of cancellation and the Tribunal being an appellate authority was always competent to examine the record for appreciation of document/order in question. However, the CW 10294/09 //6// Tribunal has given liberty vide order impugned to the State Govt. to pass fresh order, if required in the interest of administration, which is always possible & available for the authority to examine the grievance of respective parties while taking an independent decision in the interest of justice. Transfer is otherwise an incidence of service and does not affect either way the service conditions of petitioner and once he holds transferable post and having worked for almost 8-10 years years at one station. No one can claim as a matter of right to remain posted at one place. In the facts of instant case, in the opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has not committed any manifest error in passing the order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.6/10294CW09Aug26Trns.doc