Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9 -1 -2015 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur (hereinafter the Tribunal) dismissing the petitioners challenge to his transfer on 15 -10 -2014 from Government Senior Secondary School Bajoriya, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur to Government Senior Secondary School Ramnagar, Jamwa Ramgarh District Jaipur about 75 Kms. away. The Tribunal also negated the challenge to the transfer of respondent No. 3 Gajraj Singh Shekhawat vis   -vis the petitioner.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer of petitioner substantively holding the post of Senior Teacher mathematics but also additionally working as Booth Level Officer (BLO) with the State Election Authority under its order dated 4 -10 -2010, could not have been effected without the prior permission of the District Election Authority in view of Section 13CC of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as also the Block Booth Officer's Booklet. He submitted that even otherwise the petitioner's transfer is malafide, inasmuch as other Booth Level Officers have been exempted from transfers under different orders by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education all passed a day prior on 14 -10 -2014. It has been further submitted that the respondent No. 3 Gajraj Singh Shekhawat did not join as Senior Teacher Mathematics at the Government Secondary/school Ramnagar, Jamwa Ramgarh and in terms of the policy of the Government as reflected in transfer orders dated 15 -10 -2014 as also 14 -10 -2014 evidencing inter alia that teachers who were on unauthorised leave would not be relieved, yet the respondent No. 3, albeit absent from his earlier posting was relieved and allowed to join vis   -vis the petitioner. He submits mat the Tribunal overlooked all the above aspects and its judgment under challenge was hence vitiated and liable to be set aside. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, counsel for the State submits that the issue with regard to legality of petitioner's transfer has been addressed by the Tribunal by a reasoned order and it has been found that the transfer order does not suffer from any legal lacunae. Transfers are an incident of service and matter of exercise of administrative discretion in public interest. The petitioner was serving as Senior Teacher of mathematics at the Government Senior Secondary School Bajoriya, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur since 2010. Vide order dated 4 -10 -2010 he was given additional work of BLO in respect of the Hawamahal Assembly constituency for revising the electoral rolls, required to complete the work assigned upto 23 -11 -2010 and submit the report on 24 -11 -2010. It is another matter that the petitioner continued to work as BLO till his transfer on 15 -10 -2014. It has been submitted as an aside, that as Senior Teacher Mathematics, the petitioner did not do justice to his duties as during his tenure students with mathematics in class X examination continued to show deteriorating results. Counsel submitted that while the petitioner was working as Senior Teacher at Government Senior Secondary School Bajoriya, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur the result of students of class X in the subject of mathematics in the year 2010 -11 was 77.41%, then only 41.17% in 201 -12 and further in the academic year 2012 -13 only 20.73%. Counsel has further submitted that the respondent No. 3 Gajraj Singh Shekhawat was on sanctioned leave for about four months, because of a medical condition and he is Cancer survivor. In the exercise of its discretion the employer can also and does take into account the medical condition of its employees and sometimes even their family members and no illegality of a transfer on this count can be attributed. He submitted that the petitioner's place of posting under the impugned transfer order dated 15 -10 -2014 is only about 75 Kms. away from Jaipur. It was submitted that continuing with some booth level offices and not with the others was a conscious decision and an order of transfer taking into consideration all relevant fact cannot be impugned as discriminatory as each case turns on its own facts.
(3.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.;