NARAYAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition as been filed challenging the impugned transfer Order dated 24/29th Sept. 1998 (Annexure 3 to A Q/FQ/R9 14/9 8/PYB/S G P the extent it relates to the petitioner and, also, for quashing of the letters dated 9-10-1998 and 14-10-1998, contained in Annexures 5 and 6, respectively to the writ petition, by which contesting respondent No. 4 has been shown to have been taken the charge in pursuance of the impugned transfer order.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was posted as the Assistant Engineer (Irrigation) at the Sub-Division I, Jodhpur, in place of the respondent No. 4 Shri D.K. Joshi. A transfer order was passed on 13-7-1998 (Annexure-1) in respect of large number of Assistant Engineers including the petitioner and respondent No. 4. In pursuance of the said transfer order, the petitioner took the charge of the said post and replaced the respondent No. 4, and the respondent No. 4 was posted to another Sub-Division of Irrigation Department in Jodhpur itself on a vacant post. Subsequently, an order dated 24-9-1998 (Annexure-3) was passed transferring some persons, by which the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were transferred vice versa. Petitioner has raised the grievance against the impugned transfer order dated 24-9- 1998. However, the complicacy arose that in the meanwhile the elections were declared in the State of Rajasthan and the Chief Electoral Officer of Rajasthan issued the order dated 5-10- 1998, contained in Annexure 2 to the petition, putting a complete ban on transfers and it further provided that if an employee had already been transferred, but could not be relieved before 26-9-1998, he would not be relieved and be permitted to continue on the said post.

(3.) In the instant case, there are claims and counter-claims regarding relieving of the petitioner and taking the charge by the respondent No. 4. Various documents have been filed by the petitioner to prove that respondent No. 4 had neither been relieved from his original posting nor he had taken the charge by the said cut off date. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 has produced certain letters to show that he had taken the charge in pursuance of the transfer order dated 24-9-1994. This Court, vide interim order dated 26-10-1998, granted status quo ante to be maintained in pursuance of the order dated 5- 10-1998 passed by the Chief Electoral Officer. As the petitioner is on election duty, it is not desirable that the interagnum arrangement made by this Court vide order dated 26-10-1998 be disturbed.