RAMESHWAR DAYAL GOYAL DR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

(2.) THE petitioner and the respondent No, 2 are the Junior Specialists and both of them were for a considerable time at Bharatpur. On 31. 07. 1991 the petitioner was transferred from Bhusawar to Bharatput and thereafter on 25. 06. 1991 from Bharatpur to Bhusawar. This transfer has been challenged on the ground that it was not in subjective satisfaction of the Government and no reason for the transfer has been mentioned and it was a colourable exercise of power in as much as the respondent No. 2 was only adjusted at Bharatpur. It has also been submitted that the residential accommodation which was with the respondent No. 2 was not vacated and therefore, he tried his transfer to Bharatpur and has been successful. Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent has placed reliance on the case of Shilpi Bose v/s. State of Bihar (1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there should be little interference in the order of the transfer by the High Court. From the facts as narrated, in the present case it is neither proved nor alleged that the transfer of the petitioner was malafied. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 is suffering from Myocardial infraction and the facilities are available at Bharatpur. THE submission of Mr. Keshot is that such type of facilities are available at other hospitals in Rajasthan and outside and therefore, he has been kept at Bharatpur cannot be considered a proper exercise of power by the respondent. To see the welfare of the employees and remove their difficulties is the duty of the Government and while performing such a duty, some difficulties may arise to the other employees. But for that reason it cannot be said that there is a colourable exercise of power. THE writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained to know the reasons which the Government is not bound to communicate to the petitioner for the transfer. THE petitioner has to make out his own case and satisfy the court for exercising such extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Since in the present case, no such cause of illegality has been shown. THE order passed by the respondents are upheld. THE writ petition is dismissed.