CHANDA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, working on the post of Teacher Gr. III, seeks to question by way of this writ petition, the order dated 01.03.2012 whereby the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur ('the Tribunal') has dismissed her appeal against the orders dated 26.09.2010 whereby she was transferred from the Government Upper Primary School, 4E Chhoti, Panchayat Samiti Sriganganagar to the Government Upper Primary School, 30BB Padampur, Panchayat Samiti Padampur; and dated 28.12.2010 whereby her representation was rejected by the Department. The transfer order aforesaid is sought to be questioned by the petitioner as being violative of the statutory provisions contained in Section 89(8) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act of 1994') and Rule 289 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996') because she was ordered to be transferred from Panchayat Samiti Sriganganagar to Panchayat Samiti Padampur by the District Elementary Education Officer ('the DEEO') who was not competent to do so; and then, the order was issued without mandatory consultation with the Pradhans of both the Panchayat Samitis Further, according to the petitioner, the transfer order is not bonafide as she had been transferred only in order to accommodate the respondent No. 3 in her place.

(2.) IT is noticed from the material placed on record that the petitioner earlier challenged the said transfer order dated 26.09.2010 in an appeal (No. 3068/2010) before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal, by its order dated 02.11.2010, disposed of the said appeal while directing the petitioner to submit a representation and to the respondents to decide the representation with a reasoned order and while staying the relieving order in the meantime. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, the petitioner made a representation on 01.12.2010 that was, however, rejected by the respondents on 28.12.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another appeal (No. 552/2011) seeking to question the said orders dated 26.09.2010 and 28.12.2010. In this appeal, the principal ground urged before the Tribunal was that the transfer order was wholly unauthorised for having been issued by the DEEO who was not competent to do so per Sub -sections (8) and (8 -A) of Section 89 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 289 of the Rules of 1996. It was also submitted that the petitioner could not have been transferred from one Panchayat Samiti to another without compliance of the requirements of consultation with the respective Pradhans per Sub -section (8) of Section 89 of the Act of 1994. The Tribunal has, however, rejected such contentions and dismissed the appeal with reference to the order dated 12.10.2011 as passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in a batch of petitions led by CWP No. 3539/2011: Smt. Anita Middha Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors.

(3.) AFTER having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made with reference to the law applicable, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition.