ASU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of INdia Asu Singh petitioner, an employee of the Education Department, has prayed for quashing the order of transfer Ex. 5/1 dated 21. 7. 83 qua the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case stated in the petition are as follows: In August 1982, the petitioner, already in the service of Education Department, was posted at Government Upper Primary School. Railway Colony, Barmer, vice Shri Ram Choudhary, non-petitioner No. 3 and joined on that post on 2. 8. 82. Non-petitioner No. 3 who was working on the aforesaid post was there for a long time. He did not handover the charge as required under law. During the tenure of his posting on the aforesaid post, non-petitioner No. 3 had committed several irregularities regarding the store which was under his control. He was also not having the material as per record and for that reason he was not intending to handover the charge of his post. While petitioner was working on his aforesaid posting, he received a communication on 9 8. 82 from the Superintendent of Police, District Jalore, calling upon him to verify the transfer certificate issued to one Birma Ram. THE petitioner sent reply that no such certificate had been issued nor any such date of birth is available in the record of the school. That, looking to the nature of the irregularities, non-petitioner No. 3 was guilty of serious misconduct and was liable to be dealt with by way of disciplinary action against him. But un-fortunately, no, enquiry in accordance with the law had been initiated against Kirn, That, in, the guise of public proposal (Janta Prastav) transfers are affected by the respective authorities, in utter disregard to the Circular dated 15. 4. 83 issued by the State of Rajasthan laying down the ins-tructions with regard to the transfer. That, non-petitioner No. 3 Was able to get public proposal desiring his posting vice the petitioner. THE proposal was not carried out by the nan-petitioner No. 2 and information to that effect was sent to the Deputy Director, Education Department, Jodhpur, that, it was not possible to carry out the desire as the post was not vacant. Non-petitioner No,. 3 was bent upon to get himself transferred on the post of Head Master, held by the petitioner and, therefore, orders were got issued from one Anant Ram Sharma, while Mahesh Chandra Sharma, the Inspector of Schools was no leave. That, the transfer order so passed caused a pecuniary loss of Rs. 30/- per month, which the petitioner was getting to as special allowance for the post. THE petitioner has, therefore, challenged the impugned order of his tansfer on, the grounds of malafides; pecuniary loss to him; violation of rules and having been passed by un-authorised person. It has also been averred that the petitioner being the active Member of Rajasthan Shikshak Sangh, holding the post of District Secretary and also being the Member of the State Executive Council, was actively raising the grievance of the members of the Sangh and for that reason the Govt, desiring to curb upon the activities of the Union, transferred the petitioner by way of penalty and victimisation so that he may be put to financial loss of Rs. 30/-p. m. THE petitioner has, therefore, prayed for the stay of the impugned order dated 18. 7. 83 and its being quashed qua the petitioner.

(3.) IN the reply, so filed non-petitioner No. 3 has stated that he had joined as Head Master on 21. 7. 83. That, he had not worked in that scale continuously for the last 13 years. That, he was posted at various places as Head Master besides the present institution where he had joined on 3. 9 77 and remained up to 2. 8. 82 as Head Mister, prior to his transfer vice the petitioner by the order passed in August, 1982. That, no allegations of malafides had been made by the petitioner in the writ petition against a specific person. That, INspector of Schools has been made a party in the writ petition though there is no more any such post in the Education Department. That, neither the District Education Officer nor the Deputy Director Education have been impleaded as a party in the writ petition.