CW 5008/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5008/06 Surendra Kumar Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 15/12/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Govind Sharma for Mr. Sanjay Mehla, for petitioner Mr. M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State *** Matter has come up on application filed U/Art.226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim order passed by this court dt.10th July, 2006. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard at this stage. Petitioner who is working as Gram Sevak came on transfer to Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu as per petitioner's own saying on 12th February, 2001 and vide order Ann.3 dt.28th April, 2006, he was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Khanpur after almost 5 yrs. of his effective working in Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa. This order was assailed by the petitioner by filing appeal before Service Appellate Tribunal CW 5008/06 [2] which was dismissed vide order Ann.6 dt.5th June, 2006. Foremost contention of the counsel for petitioner is that there are incumbents of longer stay who were working in Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa, of which reference has been made in Para 8 of the writ petition and in such circumstances transfer of petitioner under order impugned in no manner can be said to be justified and action of the respondents is not in consonance with the Scheme of Rules and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that the State Government by virtue of Sec.89 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is competent to transfer its employees from one Zila Parishad to other Zila Parishad or the case may be. Indisputably, transfer was made in the interest of administration and moreso petitioner worked for more than 5 yrs. in Panchayat Samiti, Chirawa. The State Government after taking into CW 5008/06 [3] consideration overall material considered appropriate to transfer the petitioner under order impugned. It is not the case of the petitioner that order passed by the respondents impugned Ann.3 dt.28th April, 2006 is in violation of any statutory provision and he has also not imputed any malafide against the authority who has passed the order impugned. Transfer is otherwise an incidence of service and no one can claim as a matter of right to remain posted at a particular station and the respondent is within its competence to transfer its employees in the interest of administration or in exigency of service, if any occasion arises. Learned Tribunal has also examined and does not find favour while rejecting his appeal vide order Ann.6 dt.5th June, 2006. This court finds no substance in the instant petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA5008CW06 15-12.doc