CW 8879/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8879/06 Dr. [Smt.] Poonam Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 13/01/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma for Mr. Ashok Bansal, for petitioner Mr. Dharmendra Agrawal, for respondent *** Matter has come up on application U/Art.226 (3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex-parte stay order passed by this court dt.14th November, 2006. However, looking to the nature of controversy, it is finally decided at this stage. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order dt.24th February, 2006 by which she was transferred from Ganganagar to Ratangarh, which was initially assailed before Service Appellate Tribunal. While rejecting appeal vide order dt.22nd March, 2006, it was observed that petitioner remained posted in Ganganagar since 1996 and hardly went to other place for one month on two different occasions. Taking note thereof, it was further observed that concerned Member of Legislative Assembly of the Constituency has only made request to the then Minister for passing appropriate orders in regard to transfer and it CW 8879/06 [2] is always open for the Government to consider while taking decision, if required, in the interest of administration and in these circumstances, if petitioner remain posted substantially since 1996 in Ganganagar and the decision has been taken by the authority to transfer her in the interest of administration from Ganganagar to Ratangarh under order impugned. It cannot be held to be arbitrary or in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for petitioner has reiterated the same submission which he made before Tribunal. Suffice it to say that in addition to what has been observed by Tribunal, this fact has not been controverted that since 1996 the petitioner remained posted in Sriganganagar itself and hardly on two occasions for one month each she was transferred outside Ganganagar. This clearly shows that petitioner for one or other reason got herself adjusted at Sriganganagar despite the fact that she is holding a transferable post and it is always open for the authority to transfer, if required, in the interest of administration. Even under the interim order of this court, she had worked for more than 3 yrs. Taking note CW 8879/06 [3] thereof, this Court does not find any manifest error in the order impugned, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court dt.14th November, 2006 stands vacated. Counsel for petitioner wants liberty to make representation. He is always at liberty to file representation before the competent authority, if advised. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA8879CW06 13-1.doc