HARLAL SINGH Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , serving as Teacher Gr. III and having remained posted at Khoru -Laxmangarh (Sikar) since July, 1996 on being transferred to Tihay (Pul Budge) (Sikar) vide order dt.26/09/2010 as per his own saying at a distance of 60 kms. preferred appeal -3324/2010, where one of objections raised was that TA & DA were not made admissible while he never made request for transfer; which was taken note of by learned Tribunal while disposing of his appeal vide order Dt. 09/11/2010 with the direction to make representation to the authority and if made, the authority was also expected to decide in accordance with law within one month during which order of transfer impugned was kept in abeyance; pursuant to which, representation was made by Petitioner and taking note whereof, order has now been passed by Respondents authority on 28/01/2011 upholding the order of transfer and TA & DA were made admissible to the Petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL submits that the order impugned transferring the Petitioner was not in the interest of administration and is nothing but a clear case of accommodation in favour of incumbent vice whom he has transferred; in such circumstances, action of Respondents authority in transferring him vide order impugned cannot be said to be in the exigency of service.

(3.) TRANSFER is otherwise an incidence of service and does not affect either of service conditions and one cannot claim any lien to continue at one place for times to come. It is not the case of Petitioner where he has alleged any violation of statutory rules or imputed malice against the authority who has passed the transfer order impugned. After having remained posted at one place since July, 1996, if he has been transferred under order impugned, it cannot be said to be arbitrary action of Respondents authority which may call for interference. This Court does not find any manifest error in the judgment while dismissing appeal of the Petitioner.