LOONKARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner by this petition seeks to challenge Annexure-19 dt. 28.2.2006. By this Annexure-19 the petitioner has been transferred from Sindhri to Jaisalmer.

(2.) It was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the grievance of the petitioner can be ventilated by way of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, in view of the fact, that the order is appealable before the Tribunal, whereupon the learned counsel relied upon two judgments of this Court, being in, Daulal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1989 (1) RLR-392, and Richhpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1998 WLC(UC)-112, and contended, that in Daulal's case it was held, that since the order of Tribunal is not enforceable by the Tribunal, as there is no machinery set up for this purpose, the remedy of appeal is not efficacious remedy, and Richhpal Singh's case was cited for the purpose of pressing into service, the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, about the nature of effectiveness and efficacy of the hearing of appeals by the Tribunal. Few more judgments including Bank of India Vs. Lekhimoni Das reported in (2000)3 SCC-640, Shashi Gaur Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi reported in 2000(5) SLR-248, Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Reported in 2003(2) SCC-107, Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998)8 SCC-1 etc., were also cited to show the principles propounded therein, about the nature of the bar of the alternative remedy in entertaining the writ petition. Then, the judgment in Ramadhar Pandey V/S State of U.P., reported in 1993(4) JT-72, was relied upon to contend, that the order of transfer should contain reasons. Then, the judgment in Shri Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in JT 1997(6) SC- 229 was relied upon to contend, that where the transfer was effected at the behest of the person interested, it was interfered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the transfer was quashed. Then, coming to the facts, it was contended, that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers, inasmuch as, from the period 9.7.2004 to 28.2.2006, he has been transferred seven times, without any reason. It was also contended, that when the private respondent was transferred vide order dt. 5.9.2005, the present (Annexure-16), that was challenged by him by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5653/2005, which was decided on 23.9.2005, and therein observations were made permitting the present respondent no.4 to submit representation within one week pointing out his difficulties, and the competent authority was expected to decide that representation, and according to the petitioner, that representation was decided on 14.1.2005, by being dismissed, notwithstanding that, without any further reason, the impugned order dt. 28.2.2006 has been passed, transferring the petitioner, and in the garb has virtually accepted the rejected representation of the respondent no.4. Thus, it is contended that the order is arbitrary, and is violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) On the other hand Mr. Bhati submitted, that representation was rejected as the merits of the difficulties projected by the present respondent no.4 were considered, and they were not found acceptable, but then that does not prevent the respondents from ordering transfer in administrative exigencies in public interest, which had been done vide Annexure-19. It was also pointed out, that it is not a case of frequent transfers, rather the transfer was effected on 9.7.2004 which was got cancelled by the petitioner on 19.7.2004 itself. Then, it is on 30.9.2004 that he was transferred from Jaisalmer to Sindhri, and since then he is continuing at Sindhri. May be that in the intervening period i.e. on 12.7.2005 he was transferred from Sindhri to Jaisalmer which order was immediately cancelled on 14.7.2005, and then he was again ordered to be transferred from Sindhri to Jaisalmer which again was cancelled vide order dt. 5.9.2005, and thus, the petitioner is there at Sindhri right from 30.9.2004, i.e. around one and a half years. It was also pointed out, that the transfer effected on 30.9.2004, vide Annexure-7, was at the petitioner's own request, and therefore, if after serving at the place of choice for one and a half years, he has been sent back to Jaisalmer, where from he has been sent to Sindhri, it cannot be said, that the order is arbitrary, or is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.