Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) PETITIONER while serving as Teacher Gr.III having remained posted at one place for almost four years in Govt. Upper Primary School Kalawat Panchayat Samiti kherwada (Udaipur) vide order dt.30/08/2010 (Ann.3) on being transferred within district Udaipur at Dhadhwali Jhadol, allegedly as per own saying at a distance of 150 Kms preferred appeal but was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide judgment dt.07/10/2010 (Ann.10), impugned herein.
(2.) MAIN thrust of Petitioner's Counsel is that his wife is working as ANM in medical & Health Department and posted at Primary Health Centre, Kalyanpur Rishabhdev (Udaipur) situated at a distance of 10 kms and while passing order impugned herein, Government Circular which the authority was expected to adhere while keeping the wife and husband at one place, has been violated. Counsel further contends that those employees engaged in the work of census, as per Government Circular are not to be disturbed from the place of their posting in census work; in such circumstances, the decision taken by Respondent for transferring the Petitioner vide order impugned is not legally sustainable. The learned Tribunal taking note of material on record was not inclined to interfere in the order of transfer impugned and accordingly dismissed his appeal vide judgment dt.07/10/2010 (Ann.10). This Court has also considered the submission and does not find any substance in either of submissions made (supra). If husband & wife both are Government servant, it is always expected that they should remain posted at nearby their posting place. However, it is always for the authority to consider in exigency of service. Indisputably in instant petition Petitioner remained posted at one place for almost last four years and the authority considered it appropriate to transfer him within district, which cannot be said to be an arbitrary action. As regards submission made with respect to Petitioner being engaged and deployed in census work, that will not preclude the authority in taking decision to transfer unless it violates any statutory rule or action may appear to be per se malafide which may warrant interference. It is not the case of Petitioner that statutory rules have been violated while passing order of his transfer impugned herein or action of the authority being actuated with malice.
(3.) THIS Court finds no error being committed which may call for interference in the order impugned. Transfer is otherwise an incidence of service and does not affect either of service conditions and one cannot claim any lien to continue at one place of posting for all times to come.;