(1.) The petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 760 of 2006 and Civil Misc. No. 1338 of 2006. The aforementioned petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to treat the legal notice as a representation and take a decision thereon in the light of the written statement filed by the Joint Director, in Civil Writ Petition No. 15519 of 2004, (Rajpal and others v. State of Haryana and another). The aforementioned order were passed on January 30, 2006. There were other writ petitions also filed by some other employees, which are as under :-
(2.) In pursuance to the directions issued, the respondents have considered the representation made by the petitioner and recorded the conclusion that the orders of transfer are administrative in nature and within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Authorities. It has also been mentioned that it is for the administration to consider the facts of a given case and in order to mitigate the real hardship of an employee, transfer may be made keeping in view the interest of good and efficient administration. Reference in this regard has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and another v. S.S. Gaurav and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 1056 It has been concluded that no injustice had been caused to the petitioner and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has argued that the order was required to be passed in accordance with the written statement filed by the respondents in Civil Writ Petition No. 15519 of 2004, wherein the question of adjustment of the staff, which have been rendered surplus, has been raised by adjusting the senior first in the institute where they are working and transferring the juniors. According to the learned counsel, the aforementioned fact has not been kept in view and the petitioner who is senior has been transferred ahead of his junior, which is impermissible.