- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner holding the post of Senior Specialist (Opthalmology) and deputed against the post of Joint Director (Blindness) has challenged the transfer order dated 9.3.2012 (Anx.2) whereby he has been transferred from Jaipur to Dholpur, against which the petitioner filed Appeal No.197/2012 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal') and while upholding the transfer order dated 9.3.2012, the said appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.4.2012. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is aged about 58 years and as per the guidelines, persons who are having two years of service prior to their superannuation, are normally not to be transferred. Apart from the above, the petitioner has expressed the hardship that he himself has suffered from Tuberculosis of Cervical (Neck) Vertebra which required hospitalisation and bed rest for about more than four months and further that he is required to undergo regular check up as there are chances of recurrence of the disease and he has been advised to continue use cervical collar. It has then been stated that his father is an old and infirm person aged about 82 years and he has been diagnosed patient of Carcinoma Sigmoid Colon (Cancer of large intestine) for which he had to undergo surgery in the year 1995 and since then he is under regular treatment of Neurologist and Urologist. Later on he had developed heart disease for which he had to undertake pace maker surgery in the year 2005 and since then he is regularly getting treatment from the Cardiologist and he is also physically handicapped and is suffering from total loss of hearing. That apart, wife of the petitioner is also chronically ill and is suffering from Ulcerative Colitis with involvement of right knee joint and is under treatment of Orthopedic Surgeon and her right knee is severely damaged and requires replacement. The Tribunal has also considered the above facts of hardship and while dismissing the appeal on merit, considered other grounds and referred two judgments on the ground of hardship State of MP V. S.S.Kaurav (AIR 1995 SC 1056) and S.C.Saxena V. Union of India and others (2006) 9 SCC 583) according to which the Court is not to interfere in the matter of transfer on the ground of hardship and for hardship, the aggrieved employee is to make representation before the authorities concerned. I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the petitioner. In my view, the Tribunal has not committed any kind of error in dismissing the appeal at the admission stage along with stay petition on merit. However, as regards the aforesaid hardship, the petitioner may file a representation before the authorities concerned within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, which shall be considered and decided by the concerned authorities within a period of one month thereafter.
(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed with above observations.;