VIJAY LAXMI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 8.9.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 28.7.2004 (Annexure-6) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal") by which the appeal of the petitioner against transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (Annexure-1) was dismissed and the transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (Annexure-1) qua the petitioner by which the petitioner was transferred from Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhil wara to Shri Jawahar Hospital, Jaisalmer and against the post, which was being held by the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar Chouhan was posted be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to work at the place where she was working prior to issuance of transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (Annexure-1) i.e. at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows : The petitioner was working on the post of Senior Specialist (Gyne.) at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara. She was also holding the charge of Principal Medical Officer, Bhilwara and she took the charge of the said post of PMO on 5.3.2004 and for that, copy of the certificate of transfer of charge dated 5.3.2004 is placed on record as Annexure-2. Thereafter, through impugned transfer order dated 11.7.2004 (Annexure-1), the respondent No. 3 Dy. Secretary, Medical and Health Services (Group II) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur made transfer of as many as 147 doctors and by the same order Annexure-1, the petitioner, who is Senior Specialist (Gyne.), was transferred from Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara to Shri Jawahar Hospital, Jaisalmer against vacant post and against the post, which was being held by the petitioner including the post of Principal Medical Officer, the respondent No. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar Chouhan, who is Junior Specialist (Gyne.), was transferred. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar Chouhan was first transferred from Asind to Bijoliya, but that transfer order was not complied with by him and thereafter, through impugned transfer order Annexure-1 dated 11.7.2004, he wass transferred against the post, which was being held by the petitioner and that transfer order Annexure-1 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows : (i) That the post, which was being held by the petitioner before her transfer through impugned transfer order Annexure-1, was the post of Senior Specialist (Gyne.) and she was also holding the post of Principal Medical Officer, Bhilwara and since the respondent No. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar Chouhan is Junior Specialist (Gyne.), therefore, he could not be transferred and posted against the post meant for Senior Specialist (Gyne.) (ii) That since the respondent No. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar Chouhan is Junior Specialist (Gyne.) and since the post of Principal Medical Officer, Bhilwara, which was being held by the petitioner, was meant for Senior Specialist, therefore, from this point of view also, transfer of the respondent No. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar against the post which was being held by the petitioner was mala fide exercise of power on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the same was made to adjust him. It may be stated here that before approaching this Court, the petitioner has also preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the impugned transfer order Annexure-1, but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal through judgment Annexure-6 dated 28.7.2004. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and their case is that the present transfers cannot be said to be mala fide as they had power to make transfers and further, the transfers were made on administrative exigencies. Hence, no interference is called for and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It may be stated here that despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 4 Dr. Arun Kumar Chouhan.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents and gone through the material available on record.