SEDU RAM YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a teacher working in the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti, Neem-ka-thana and he also claims to be an active member of the Rajasthan Sikshak Sangh. He was transferred by Order No. 2438 dt. 4/9/1982, but the same was cancelled by the State of Rajasthan by its order dated 5/10/1982. (Annx. 1 ). A copy of the said order was also endorsed to the Private Secretary to the Minister in view of Minister's order dated 27/9/1982. THE petitioner was again transferred from Jaitpura to Dalpura vide order dated 6/1/1983, but the order was not implemented till 2/2/1983 and, therefore, a reminder was issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner (Adm-III) on 31/1/1983, (Annx. 2) for implementing the transfer order dated 6/1/1983. In pursuance of the said transfer order dated 6/1/1983 and the reminder dated 31/1/83. THE petitioner joined at new place of posting.- An order was again issued on 2/2/1983 (Annx. 3 ). THE Deputy Development Commissioner (Adm-III), Gram Vikas Panchayat Raj, Rajasthan, issued yet another order on 28/2/1983, cancelling the transfer order dated 6/1/1983. Being aggrieved with the afore-said illegal and impugned order dated 3/3/1983 (Annx. 4) issued in pursuance of order dated 28/2/1983, passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, the present writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the same with the further direction that the petitioner should not be transferred. THE petitioner's contention is that there are two political groups in the area. One is led by Shri Madan Divan and the other by Shri Mohan Lal Modi and, since Shri Mohan Lal Modi is prejudiced against the petitioner because of misunderstanding that the petitioner belongs to his rival group led by Shri Madan Diwan, therefore, it is because of this political interference that all these transfers have been made and since the transfer orders have been passed purely because of political pressure and motivated with extraneous consideration and for achieving an alien purpose and with oblique motive. It was neither on administrative exigencies nor in public interest and, therefore, mala fide, arbitrary, illegal and unjust and hence, deserves to be quashed. THE writ petition came up for admission on 10/3/1983 when Shri A. K. Sharma Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 as he had filed a caveat and sought short time to argue the matter. THE case was fixed for arguments on 11/3/1983. A reply was also filed on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2. In its reply, non-petitioner No. 2 has also taken preliminary objections that since there are allegations of mala fides against Shri Mohan Lal Modi and the petitioner has not impleaded Shri Mohan Lal Modi as a respondent, the writ petition should be dismissed in limine on this count alone. He has further pleaded that the allegations of mala fides are vague and, therefore, should be ignored, and since the petitioner has been using political influence for getting his transfer orders cancelled he is not entitled to pursue this writ petition and should be dismissed in limine. On merits also, the non-petitioner has submitted that since there were written complaints against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner along with other 42 teachers were transferred by a common order dated 4/9/1982 (Annx R/l ). THE transfer order is neither mala fide. THEy have also produced the order of the State Government dated 14/10/1982 (Annx. R/2), by which the order dated 5/10/1982 (Annx. 1) was cancelled, and the earlier order of transfer dated 4/9/1982 was restored. THEy have also produced copy of the order dated 6/1/1983 (Annx. R/3) issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner (Adm-III) requesting to issue the orders of the transfer of petitioner and five others under intimation to him. THEy have contended that the order dated 6/1/1983 was absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and of no avail. THE matter of transfer war. discussed by the Standing Committee for Administration & Finance of the Panchayat Samiti, Neem-ka-thana on 25/1/1983 and it was unanimously resolved that since the transfers were made on account of complaints, for administrative reasons and exigencies of service they should be implemented otherwise it will result in indiscipline in the department and, have denied that the action of the Panchayat Samiti was on account of any pressure from Shri Mohan Lal Modi.

(2.) ARGUMENTS of the learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the various authorities cited by them and the various orders produced by them. The petitioner has himself mentioned in his writ petition that there are two parties in the area : one party is led by Shri Madan Diwan and the other by Shri Mohan Lal Modi and the petitioner through his Sikshak Singh and Shri Madan Diwan, a political worker approached the Government and, therefore, the State Government was pleased to cancel the transfer order dated 4/8/1982, which shows that the petitioner himself has been resorting to influence by politicians in obtaining the transfer order cancelled. The petitioner was aggrieved by the original transfer order dated 4/8/1982 and if that original order was mala fide, not for administrative convenience and exigencies of service, then he could have challenged that order before this court, or he could have resorted to any other remedy through a court of law. But the petitioner himself, instead of persuing the constitutional remedy resorted to extra constitutional means to secure the desired relief. Therefore, in my view, he has disentitled himself to seek any relief in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. I am fully supported in this view by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh reported in Ram Krishan vs. District Education Officer, Kulu (supra), cited by the petitioner himself. The facts narrated by the petitioner in his writ petition clearly indicate that the orders have been passed in the present case like a game of shuttle cock and this Court will not like to become a referee to such a game and, therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the transfer order. Moreover, Shri Modi has not been made a party to the writ petition, though, there are several allegations against him and on that account also the petition should fail. Shri Modi was not a member of the Standing Committee which has passed the original transfer order and the Government should not have interfered with the transfer order passed by the Panchayat Samiti.