M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this petition, a challenge is made to the order of transfer whereby petitioner has been transferred from Kaladera to Sawaimadhopur. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that order of transfer suffers from malafide as she has been posted to accommodate private respondent. The accommodation of private respondent is coming out from the fact that petitioner's posting is against surplus post at Sawaimadhopur thus petitioner would be in addition to the sanctioned strength for Sawaimadhopur hence cannot be said to be in public interest and otherwise proves malafide of the respondents. It is also stated that private respondent has been posted at Kaladera in violation of Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 (in short "Rules of 2010"). An employee to be appointed under the Rules of 2010 cannot be posted against post meant for direct recruitees. The respondents have ignored the aforesaid also while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, for all the reasons given above, order of transfer deserves to be set aside.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that order of transfer has been passed purely in the interest of administration and in exigency of service. The allegation of malafide is made without substantiating the same. The private respondent has been appointed under the Rules of 2010 and given posting where one can be posted only in rural area. It is not by way of accommodation, accordingly the very basis to challenge the order of transfer is not made out. So far as alleged violation of Rules of 2010 is concerned, it is not made out for the reason that any person appointed under the Rules of 2010 can be posted in rural area. Kaladera where private respondent has been posted is rural area thus posting of the respondent is in consonance with the Rules of 2010 and not in violation of it. Rules of 2010 does not bar posting against a post which was earlier filed by direct recruitee. The bifurcation of the post for promotees/direct recruitees or appointees under the Rules of 2010 is not separately identified for posting thus it is erroneous to say that private respondent has been posted against the post meant for direct recruitees.
(3.) SO far as last argument is concerned, the petitioner was posted at Sawaimadhopur against vacant post. The person was transferred however continuing due to interim order of the Tribunal. Looking to the aforesaid and as the petitioner has not been posted against surplus post, no case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order of transfer. It is moreso when petitioner has already joined at Sawaimadhopur.;