Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has sought the following relief: i) quash and set -aside the impugned transfer orders dated 30.8.2010 (Anneuxres -1 and 2) passed by the Respondent No. 2; ii) quash and set aside the impugned relieving order dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure -5) passed by the Respondent No. 4; iii) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure -10) passed by the Respondent No. 2 by which the representation filed by the Petitioner was dismissed; iv) quash and set aside the impugned relieving order dated 1.4.2011 (Annexure -11) passed by the Respondent No. 7 herself; v) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.4.2011 (Annexure -14) passed by the learned Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed; vi) award the cost in favour of the humble Petitioner through out; and vii) pass any other appropriate order, direction or relief in favour of the humble Petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is noticed that vide order no Jaipur -9/2010 dated 30.8.2010, the Petitioner was transferred from Laxman Doongri, Jaipur to Chandlai, Jaipur. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.8.2010, the Petitioner preferred an appeal No. 2641/2010 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (here -in -after to be referred to for short "Tribunal"). The learned Tribunal vide its order dated 14.10.2010, having analyzed the matter in detail, disposed of the appeal directing the Petitioner to submit a representation before the Respondent -Department and the Respondent -Department, in turn, was directed to decide the representation of the Petitioner within a period of two months. In pursuance of the order dated 14.10.2010, the Petitioner is found to have submitted a representation and the Department is also found to have sympathetically considered and disposed of the same vide order dated 16.12.2010, by amending the transfer place of the Petitioner from Chandlai, Jaipur to Goner, Jaipur and by directing that since he has been deputed in Census work, as such he be relieved on completion of census work i.e. after 31.3.2011. Instead of obeying the directions issued to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is found to have again filed an appeal No. 714/2011 before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 30.8.2010 as well as 16.12.2010 without impleading the Respondent No. 7. The Respondent No. 7, being a teacher of Urdu subject, was transferred to Laxman Doongri, Jaipur looking to the fact that out of total strength of 266 students, 214 students were having Urdu subject and the teacher of general discipline could not teach the Urdu subject. The learned Tribunal, having dealt with the matter in detail, vide order dated 11.4.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of S.C. Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. reported in, 2006 (9) SCC 583 and Gujrat Electricity Board v. Atma Ram reported in, AIR 1989 SC 143. In the case of S.C. Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "it is the duty of the employee to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed."
(3.) IN the instant case, the Petitioner instead of reporting the duty at the new place of posting, is found to have indulged in litigation by invoking the jurisdiction of one forum or the other. If he had any grievance, he ought to have first joined the duty and thereafter submitted the representation before the Respondents imploring them to consider the same sympathetically, but he has failed to do so.;