- (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Teacher Grade-III after her selection through Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide order dt.10.09.2007 (Annx.1) and after remained posted for three years on being transferred vide order impugned dt.26.09.2010 within district Sawaimadhopur from one Panchayat Samiti to the other preferred appeal before the Tribunal which was rejected vide order dt.14.12.2010.
(2.) THE main thrust of submissions of counsel is that in the order of appointment it has been observed that pay-scale and other service conditions of the petitioner will be governed by Panchayati Raj Rules and thus has become member of Panchayati Raj Rules,1996 and in such circumstances could not have been transferred outside Panchayat Samiti without compliance of Sec.89(8-A) of the Act of 1994 or R.289 of the Rules,1996 and in support of submissions placed for perusal an interim order passed by this Court reference of which has made by the Tribunal as well in its order dt.14.12.2010. The submission made is of no substance for the reason that post advertised by the RPSC was included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules,1971 and the petitioner after final selection was appointed under the Rules of 1971 vide order dt.10.09.2007 (Annx.1) since was discharging duties in Panchayat Samiti, pay-scale and other service conditions as referred to are governed for limited purposes but the ultimate fact remains that the petitioner being member of the Rules,1971 the provisions of Rules, 1989 or Rules, 1996 as urged by the counsel for petitioner has no application in the facts of the instant case and the authority holds competence to transfer the petitioner even being a member of Rules,1971 from one place to the other and this is what has been considered by the learned Tribunal as well while deciding the appeal vide order dt.14.12.2010. Apart from it, the petitioner after remained posted for three years has been transferred at a distance of 80 kms within same district and transfer otherwise being incidence of service cannot create lien to continue and no malice has been alleged by the petitioner against the authority who has passed the order impugned, in absence whereof there appears to be no justification for this Court to interfere in the administrative decision of the respondent. Counsel further submits that petitioner has been transferred however within same district but to accommodate the other incumbent who has been brought from district Udaipur for which the authority is not competent. This Court is examining action of the respondents so far as present petitioner is concerned and the authority if holds competence or not in transferring the other incumbent is not the question to be examined by the Court.
(3.) THIS Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the learned Tribunal while passing the order impugned. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.;