- (1.) THE petitioner-appellant, working on the post of Ayurved Chikitsadhikari and having been transferred from Kadi Shahana, District Bhilwara to Mangrop, District Bhilwara by an order dated 31.05.2012 (Annex.8), attempted to question the transfer order by way of an appeal (No.823/2012) before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The Tribunal summarily dismissed the appeal by its order dated 28.06.2012 after finding no case for interference in the order of transfer. Then, the petitioner-appellant attempted to question the order so passed by the Tribunal by way of a writ petition (CWP No.7498/2012) that has been considered and, again, summarily dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 27.07.2012 with a short order that reads as under: - "By the order dated 31.5.2012 the petitioner, a Ayurved Chaktishak, has been transferred from Kadi Sahana, Bhilwara to Mangrop District Bhilwara. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, that came to be dismissed on 28.6.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that as per the government policy if both the spouses are in government service, then they are required to be kept at one place. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The guidelines pertaining to transfer are not statutory in nature. It is well settled that courts are are not require to interfere with the order of transfer until that is in violation of a statute or is an outcome of malafide or is shockingly arbitrary. No such eventuality exists in the present case. The Tribunal, thus, has not committed any error that may warrant interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is, therefore, dismissed."
(2.) SEEKING to question the order aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that the Member of Legislative Assembly ('the MLA') of the area in question filed a complaint against the appellant and though the complaint was found to be frivolous, the MLA had been able to exert pressure so as to ensure his transfer. With reference to the order as passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors (2003) 11 SCC 740 it is submitted that the transfer of the officer at the behest of a politician without following the guidelines is not proper. It is further submitted that the wife of the appellant is also in the government service, working on the post of Teacher; and, as per the policy of the Government, the working spouses are to be posted at the same place. It is submitted that if the transfer of the appellant is carried out, it would detach him from the spouse and hence, is required to be interfered with. After having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made, we find no case for interference in this intra-court appeal. The suggestion about the appellant's transfer having been ordered at the behest of the MLA remains rather hollow and baseless. Even if once upon a time, there had been some complaint made by the MLA, it cannot be assumed ipso facto that the transfer had been the result of such complaint alone. It is noticed that by the order dated 31.05.2012 as many as 344 transfers have been ordered and the appellant is one of those incumbents. It is also noticed that the appellant has remained posted in Bhilwara district since the year 2001; and, admittedly, had been at Kadi Shahana since the year 2005. It is further noticed that even by way of the order impugned, the appellant has been transferred within Bhilwara district only. So far the contentions regarding spouse is concerned, even if the guidelines state desirability of the working spouses being ordinarily posted at the same place, no employee could claim his posting at a particular place with reference to the posting of the spouse as a matter of right. The requirements and interests of administration are of paramount consideration in the matters of transfer/posting; and the department cannot be asked to compromise with the interest of administration for the sake of personal convenience of every employee at every stage. The Tribunal has duly considered the matter with reference to all the factual aspects and has rejected the appeal while applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta: AIR 1992 SC 519 and Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.: AIR 1991 Supreme Court 532. The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that the transfer could be taken up for interference only if it is shown to be violative of statutory requirement or an outcome of malafide. No case of violation of any statutory requirement is made out; and transfer of the appellant after his having remained posted at one place for a substantial number of years, cannot be said to be suffering from any malafide. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. ;