1 SBCWP NO.8257/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Umrao Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8257/2008 Date of Order : : 20/03/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.C.P.Trivedi, for the petitioner. Mr.Anand Purohit, AAG for the respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure-6 dated 13th October, 2008 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal” hereinafter) and the order Annexure-3 dated 4th September, 2008 by which the petitioner was transferred from Jodhpur to Ajmer. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 SBCWP NO.8257/2008 Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that in compliance of the order Annexure-3 dated 4th September, 2008, the petitioner has joined at Regional Tourism Office, Ajmer on 15th December, 2008. He has shown me the joining report by which the petitioner has joined at Regional Tourism Office, Ajmer on 15th December, 2008. The joining report is signed by the petitioner himself and has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to accommodate Mr.G.L.Salvi, Deputy Director, the petitioner has been transferred from Jodhpur to Ajmer. The transfer is incident of service and in catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no employee can insist to remain at a particular place for indefinite period. Reference may be made to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India Vs. N.P.Thomas AIR 1993 SC 1605, Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444 and in Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 150. There is no allegation of malafide against the Authority issuing transfer order impugned. The 3 SBCWP NO.8257/2008 question of jurisdiction has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact that the transfer order has already been executed by joining new place of transfer way back on 15th December, 2008. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. The respondent-Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK 4 SBCWP NO.8257/2008 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.14275/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8257/2008 Date of Order : : 20/03/2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.C.P.Trivedi, for the petitioner. Mr.Anand Purohit, AAG for the respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK