SHANTI MARU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner working on the post of teacher Grade III having been transferred from Government Upper Primary School Gurudwara, Rani Bazar, Bikaner to Government Upper Primary School Gangapura, Kolayat earlier submitted a writ petition to this Court being SBCWP No. 6216/2007 that was withdrawn on 01.10.2007 with liberty to avail of the alternative remedy and to take proceedings in accordance with law. However, it seems that the petitioner even before filing of the writ petition had already filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur on 06.09.2007 being appeal No. 1784/2007; the Tribunal considered the appeal filed by the petitioner along with other cognate matters and decided the same by a common order dated 01.10.2007 (Annex.8). The Tribunal has rejected the submissions of the appellant that the transfer order was unauthorized or improper for having been made without the petitioner applying for the same. Aggrieved against the order dated 01.10.2007 the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the transfer order has been made in this case only in order to accommodate one Smt. Rekha Rani (respondent No. 5) who had been transferred on her request; that the respondents have framed their transfer policy and have provided, inter alia, that if dependent of a teacher is suffering from serious/incurable disease, the incumbent may be given posting at the desired place; that notwithstanding such clear provision, the petitioner has been transferred to a distant place though her husband is a heart patient and has undergone bye- pass surgery from Escorts Hospital; that due to the transfer to a far off place, the petitioner would not be able to take care of her husband and the transfer order in her relation deserves to be set aside on this ground alone; that the respondents have acted discriminately inasmuch as they have issued another order dated 07.09.2007 in relation to one Smt. Rekha Makkar allowing her to work at Bikaner only for the reason that her husband is a heart patient whereas the case of the petitioner has not been considered on the same footings; that the Tribunal has cursorily rejected the appeal of the petitioner without considering the grounds urged by the petitioner. It may be pointed out that the petitioner has made an averment in the writ petition that she did make a representation pointing out the fact about ailment of her husband and has placed a copy of the representation on record as Annex.5. During the course of submissions in this petition earlier, while learned Counsel for the petitioner made the submissions that the Tribunal has not considered the contentions in relation to the representation made by the petitioner, upon the query of the Court, learned Counsel placed on record, on 26.10.2007, a copy of memo of appeal filed before the Tribunal. With reference to the said copy of memo of appeal learned Counsel submitted that the submissions made in paragraph No. 5 of the memo of appeal have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel also attempted to submit that the petitioner is on the verge of retirement and urged that the transfer order in her relation deserves to be set aside on this ground also.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of the opinion that this writ petition does not merit admission.