BHAGWAN DAS MITTAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, by means of all these petitions, have challenged the impugned transfer orders, passed by the respondents. These petitions having common facts and law are being decided by this common order.

(2.) THE impugned transfer orders have been challenged on the grounds that the transfer has caused hardship to the petitioners as their children are minor and school going and there are no member in the family to look after them. THE respondents impugned action of transferring the petitioners is mala fide and arbitrary. THE petitioners have been transferred to a place which is at a long distance. Policy of transfer/posting had not been adhered to by the respondents. Transfers have been made in mid- session of the school. In some of the petitions, it is averred that they have been transferred on complaint filed by the outsider against the petitioners, without holding an inquiry therein. THE Election Commissioner has banned the transfers by an explicit order. THE original order was challenged and the court granted interim stay order. THE respondents have withdrawn the transfer orders to frustrate the cause of the petitioners and adjudication before the Court and passed another order posting the petitioner at another place where there is no post available for joining as the employee posted vice the petitioner has already joined. THE transfers have been made even within one and a half month, one year or two years. No public interest or administrative exigency has been shown in the transfer orders. Some petitioners have pleaded in their petitions mala fide against the Minister and the Authorities of the State but they have not been arrayed as party-respondents. In some cases, transfers are shown to have been made at the request of the petitioners whereas no such request was made by them. Despite post available at the place, from where the petitioners have been transferred or in the nearby district, the petitioners have been posted to other place or far away from district. State Government has not framed the Rules for transfer of the employees. Though, the ban was imposed by the respondents on transfers and postings, which was relaxed only from 15. 6. 2006 to 15. 7. 2006 vide order No. P. 4 (4) GA/2/99 dated 15th June, 2006 yet the transfer orders which have been issued during ban period. THE petitioners serving in Panchayat Raj Department on the Establishment of District Cadre have been transferred outside the District Cadre in violation of Section 89 of Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "act of 1994) which indicates that the respondents have enacted this provision to create a service designated as the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service and recruitment thereto shall be made district-wise and the transfer can not be made outside the district cadre.

(3.) THE transfer orders have also created analogous situation where two persons are working and the transfer has been made without availability of the post.