LAKSHMANAN, C. J. - (1.) THE Writ Petition filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 4. 2. 1997 and allow him to continue to work in the Transport Department with all consequential benefits.
(2.) BY the order dated, 4. 2. 97, the petitioner was transferred back to the Department of Agriculture from where he was relieved way back in the year 1986. The said order is annexed and marked as Annexure-6. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk after his regular selection in the department of Agriculture on 15. 5. 1971. He was confirmed with the cadre of Lower Division Clerk w. e. f. 1980. The petitioner submitted an application through proper channel for seeking his transfer from Agriculture Department to the Transport Department. He was transferred to the Transport Department vide order dated 20. 01. 1986 on the post of Lower Division Clerk (Annex. 1 ). Since the petitioner sought transfer on his own request, he was placed in the seniority list below the Lower Division Clerks working in the Transport Department at the time when he joined the said department. Because of the transfer, the petitioner has to lose his seniority under Rule (xii) of Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Services Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957. According to the petitioner, his transfer in the year 1986 was in accordance with rule 7 of the Rules of 1957 and that attained finality and thus, there is no occasion to take any adverse action against him for his posting in the department of Agriculture which he left way back in the year 1986, particularly when he had joined the department after due consent of the department. The petitioner was working in the Regional Transport Office, Kota and he submitted his application for transfer to Alwar and on his request, he was transferred from Kota to Alwar on 18. 03. 1996. He was again transferred from Alwar to Kota vide order dated 3. 1. 97 and a condition had been issued in the said order that the petitioner will not get any joining time with further direction to the R. T. O. Alwar, to relieve him by a particular date fixed in the order. According to the petitioner, the order of his transfer dated 3. 1. 1997 was malafide and in order to accommodate the person transferred vide him and there was no administrative exigency involved in the matter. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (Appeal No. 33/97) and the Tribunal stayed the operation of the order of his transfer and posted the matter for hearing on 17. 2. 97. The petitioner states that this action of the petitioner questioning the action of the respondents transferring him from Alwar to Kota within 9 months caused annoyance to the Management and immediately after the service of the stay order, the respondent as a matter of revenge, passed order dated, 4. 2. 97 transferring the petitioner back to the Department of Agriculture from where he was relieved in the year 1986. The action of the respondents is questioned in the following manner by Shri Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner: (a) The impugned action of the respondents transferring him to Agriculture Department after more than 11 years, particularly when he became entitled to get his seniority determined in the Department of Transport, is bad in the eye of law. (b) All other persons similarly placed are working in the cadre of LDC in the Transport Department even prior to the petitioner and thereafter and the petitioner alone has been picked up. He has questioned the action of the Management transferring him from Kota to Alwar. (c) One Vijay Kumar Verma, who was employed in Jail Department was transferred to Transport Department vide order dated 4. 10. 85 and he too was again sought to be transferred by the order dated 23. 6. 87 to the Jail Department, which was challenged by him before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1594/87 and the same was allowed on 19. 1. 88 and he is still working in the Transport Department. Thus, the action of the department is malafide and is in clear violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (d) To the application submitted by the petitioner to the Agriculture Department to know as to whether his lien still continues, he had been informed vide letter dated 14. 2. 97 from the office of the Director, Agriculture that he is no more on the roll of the Agriculture Department and his name has been struck off from the seniority list of the department and the department has shown inability to take him in the service of the Agriculture Department. (Annex. 8 ). (e) The seniority list which has been published by the Agriculture Department of L. D. Cs. as on 1. 4. 93 as well as on 1. 4. 94, 5. 8. 93 and 6. 8. 94, the name of the petitioner does not find place in the said seniority lists. Thus, it clearly shows that his name has been struck off from the roll by the Department of Agriculture, which fact has been clarified by the Department vide letter dated 14. 2. 97. (f) When the petitioner has been transferred with the concurrence of the Heads of the Departments and he accepted the seniority at the lowest position of the LDCs working in the Department of Transport, he has given his consent of transfer and after 11 years of satisfactory service, the respondents are not competent to repatriate him to the Department of Agriculture without his consent and without the concurrence of the Head of the Department of Agriculture. Thus it is submitted by Shri Ajay Rastogi that the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and the same is in clear violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Alongwith the writ petition the petitioner filed Annexure 1 to 8.
(3.) THE reply was filed on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner's lien continued to be in the Agriculture Department, his seniority was also shown in the Agriculture Department and that the petitioner's seniority has never been shown in the Transport Department. As far as the seniority of LDCs is concerned, it is submitted that none of the persons who had been transferred on 20. 1. 86 has been included in the seniority list of LDCs in the Transport Department and such persons continued to be shown in the seniority list of LDCs in their parent departments. It is further submitted that because the petitioner had been working in the Transport Department for 11 years, does not entitle him to have his lien transferred from Agriculture Department to the Transport Department. It is also submitted that the Agriculture Department has not been impleaded as party respondent. On behalf of the respondents, the case was argued by Shri Kamlakar Sharma. We have perused the entire pleadings filed in the writ petition, reply filed by the respondents and the application, affidavit and petition filed under Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India to vacate stay. ;