RAGHU NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the allegations made in the writ petition alongwith annexures filed in support of allegations made in the writ petition.

(2.) The order impugned in the present writ petition is a transfer order passed by the Appointing Authority on 27.5.94 (Annexure P.1) transferring the petitioner from the post of Jeep Driver Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar to Zila Parishad, Barmer. A perusal of Annexure P/1 leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the impugned transfer order has been passed in administrative exigencies. No allegations have been made in the present writ petition as to what statutory provisions have been transgressed in passing the impugned transfer order. As a matter of fact in para No. 6 of the writ petition it is alleged that there is no provision under the Act and the Rules which authorise the respondent No. 1 to transfer the petitioner from one Panchayat Samiti to another Zila Parishad, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction.

(3.) In my humble opinion the transfer is incidence of service and the Appointing Authority has inherent power to transfer a person from one place to another place looking to the administrative exigencies. It is true that for transferring an employee from one place to another some departmental instructions, office memorandum or guidelines may be formulated by the department. If in the department there is no such guideline, the respondents are hereby directed to frame the guidelines and norms of transfer.