STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made to the order dtd. 29/3/2019 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur (hereafter 'the Tribunal') whereby the appeal filed by the respondent, a Lecturer (Architecture) posted at the Government RC Polytechnic College, Jaipur, against the order of his transfer dated 8- 3-2019 as Lecturer (Civil) to Government Women Polytechnic College Barmer, has been allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that vide order dtd. 8/3/2019 the petitioner was transferred from the post of Lecturer (Architecture) Government RC Polytechnic College, Jaipur to the post of Lecturer (Civil), Government Women Polytechnic College Barmer. The order dtd. 8/3/2019 was put to challenge by the respondent before the Tribunal on the ground that since he was a Lecturer (Architecture) his transfer to the post of Lecturer (Civil), a wholly distinct post was illegal. Further he was not being allowed traveling allowance and joining time, which was against Rule 17(1)(4) of the Rajasthan Travelling Allowance Rules, 1971 and Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Charge Taking Period Rules, 1984. The Tribunal considering the submissions of the parties and the fact that the respondent a Lecturer (Architecture) was illegally transferred as Lecturer (Civil)--a distinct post-vide its impugned order dtd. 29/3/2019 quashed the transfer order of the respondent. Hence this petition.

(3.) Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, AAG appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was substantial commonality in the subject of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the undergraduate level in the Government Polytechnic colleges and the mere fact that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Architecture) and was transferred against the post of Lecturer (Civil) Engineering was of no event. He submitted that it was a public interest that the vacant post of Lecturer (Civil) Engineering at the Government Women Polytechnic College Barmer be filled up and the students at the said college be instructed. He further submitted that the petitioner on his transfer suffers no prejudice in his pay, allowances, seniority and service prospectus in the future and hence cannot at all be held to be aggrieved by the impugned transfer to invoke the court's jurisdiction.