- (1.) THE petitioner, by this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 13. 11. 92 (Annexure P. 4), by which the petitioner, who was working as Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, REC, Tiwari, was transferred and posted in the Office of the Executive Engineer (O&m), R. S. E. B. , Jaisalmer.
(2.) THE order of transfer Annexure P. 4 has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that during last six months, the petitioner has been subjected to transfers four times without any sufficient reason and, therefore, these frequent transfers of the petitioner are mala fide and the transfer order Annexure 4 dated 13. 11. 92, deserves to be quashed and set-aside, In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over Sheshrao Nagara Umap vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others (1 ). THE order of transfer has, also, been challenged on the ground that the petitioner is the Secretary of the Rastriya Bijli Karamchari Sangh, R. E. C. , Jodhpur, and the transfer of the petitioner has been made in order to curtail his union activities and he has been posted out of Jodhpur District. It was, also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was transferred on his own request on 18. 9. 82 from Jaisalmer to Tiwari and no T. A. , D. A. was paid to him and it is only after two months of his joining duties at Tiwari that he has again been transferred from Tiwari to Jaisalmer, which is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over a decision of this Court rendered in Bhinya Ram vs. the State of Rajasthan and Others Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order of transfer and has submitted that the petitioner, since the date of his appointment, has remained posted at Tiwari only. His further submission is that so far as the first transfer of the petitioner on 18. 5. 92 is concerned, when the petitioner was transferred from Tiwari to Osia, it was made on account of bifurcation of the Sub-Division and so far as second transfer order is concerned, that was made on his own request. So far as second transfer order is concerned, by which the petitioner was transferred from Osia to Jaisalmer, though the petitioner was transferred and relieved from Osia but he never joined his duties at Jaisalmer and that transfer order, so far as the petitioner is concerned, was never executed. This transfer vide Annexure P. 4 has been made in the administrative exigency and there were various complaints against the petitioner. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been posted at Tiwari since the date of his joining the service. He was appointed as the Charged-Helper on 10. 1. 70, and twenty-three years have elapsed and he is still working and posted at Tiwari. Looking to the long stay of the petitioner at Tiwari if he has been transferred from Tiwari to Jaisalmer then no illegality appears to have been committed by the respondents. The order of transfer has been passed in the administrative exigency taking into consideration the longer stay of the petitioner at Tiwari and the complaints received against him. Though at the time when he was transferred from Jaisalmer to Tiwari on his own request vide order dated 18. 9. 92, this point should have been considered by the respondents by it appears that this aspect of the case was over-looked and the request of the petitioner was acceded to and he was transferred from Jaisalmer to Tiwari. The petitioner was deprived of T. A. and D. A. when he was transferred from Jaisalmer to Tiwari but in fact, the petitioner, by that time, had not joined his duties at Jaisalmer in pursuance to the order dated 20. 7. 92 and when he had not joined the duties at Jaisalmer then otherwise, also, he was not entitled for any T. A. and D. A. and, therefore, the case of Bhinya Ram, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable qua the petitioner's case. It is, also, not a case of frequent transfers as alleged by the petitioner. Out of four transfers, first transfer was made on account of bifurcation of the Sub-Division; the second transfer was made on 20. 7. 92, but the petitioner never joined the duties at Jaisalmer though relieved from Osia; the third transfer was made on his own request and thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only the second transfer of the petitioner and that too on account of administrative exigency. The judgment in Sheshrao Nagara Umap, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is therefore, not applicable to the present case. No person has a right to remain posted at a particular place and whether a person is to be transferred or not in the exigency of administration, the concerned authority is the best person to decide on consideration of the necessities of the circumstances. No mala fide has been proved against the respondents in transferring the petitioner. As the transfer has been made in the public interest and in the exigency of the administration and has not been made in violation of any statutory Rules or on account of mala fide, therefore, the transfer order Annexure P. 4 dated 13. 11. 92, does not require any interference. The order of transfer Annexure P. 4 does not violate any of the legal rights of the petitioner and the Courts are not expected to ordinarily interfere in such matters of transfers. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. . ;