GANDHI, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS, by means of all these petitions, have challenged the impugned transfer orders, passed by the respondents. These petitions having common facts and law are being decided by this common order.
(2.) THE impugned transfer orders have been challenged on the grounds that the transfer has caused hardship to the petitioners as their children are minor and school going and there are no member in the family to look after them. THE respondents impugned action of transferring the petitioners is mala fide and arbitrary. THE petitioners have been transferred to a place which is at a long distance. Policy of transfer/posting had not been adhered to by the respondents. Transfers have been made in mid- session of the school. In some of the petitions, it is averred that they have been transferred on complaint filed by the outsider against the petitioners, without holding an inquiry therein. THE Election Commissioner has banned the transfers by an explicit order. THE original order was challenged and the court granted interim stay order. THE respondents have withdrawn the transfer orders to frustrate the cause of the petitioners and adjudication before the Court and passed another order posting the petitioner at another place where there is no post available for joining as the employee posted vice the petitioner has already joined. THE transfers have been made even within one and a half month, one year or two years. No public interest or administrative exigency has been shown in the transfer orders. Some petitioners have pleaded in their petitions mala fide against the Minister and the Authorities of the State but they have not been arrayed as party-respondents. In some cases, transfers are shown to have been made at the request of the petitioners whereas no such request was made by them. Despite post available at the place, from where the petitioners have been transferred or in the nearby district, the petitioners have been posted to other place or far away from district. State Government has not framed the Rules for transfer of the employees. Though, the ban was imposed by the respondents on transfers and postings, which was relaxed only from 15. 6. 2006 to 15. 7. 2006 vide order No. P. 4 (4) GA/2/99 dated 15th June, 2006 yet the transfer orders which have been issued during ban period. THE petitioners serving in Panchayat Raj Department on the Establishment of District Cadre have been transferred outside the District Cadre in violation of Section 89 of Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as "act of 1994) which indicates that the respondents have enacted this provision to create a service designated as the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service and recruitment thereto shall be made district-wise and the transfer can not be made outside the district cadre. It is also one of the grounds set out in the petitions that the Tribunal has maintained the subsequent order of transfer on the ground that once the transfer order is cancelled, subsequent order passed by the respondents cannot be assailed. The mother of the petitioner is ailing and the transfer order was issued on the representation, which has also been cancelled. The petitioner in one of the petition has taken the ground that the petitioner is likely to be promoted and the transfer order has been issued to frustrate his promotion. In few petitions, the ground taken is that they have been transferred within one month twice or thrice prematurely to accommodate the respondents and their orders have been issued awaiting posting but they have not challenged the basic order. In two petitions, the ground is set out that they have been transferred from one Municipal Board to another Municipal Board without their consent but no challenge to the Section 310-A of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 has been made in these petitions. The common grounds for their transfers to a larger distance has been taken in many petitions, the spouses' are already working at distant places. In some cases, petitioners have not been permitted to join despite transfer orders. One of the petitioners has stated that she has filed complaint against his superior officer and she has been transferred as a measure of vengeance. In one of the petitions, the transfer order has been issued at the instance of the Minister. The respondents, in their reply before Service Appellate Tribunal, have admitted this fact. The order impugned before the Tribunal was cancelled and within 10 days another transfer order has been issued. It is the grievance projected by a few petitioners that they have been transferred despite the fact that they are to retire within one year. In some of the petitions, it is stated that they were appointed on compassionate ground and still they have been transferred outside the District in violation of the policy framed by the State which provides that such an employee shall be posted in the District. In some petitions, the petitioners have been transferred despite stay granted by the courts by canceling the impugned orders. The petitioner was transferred at his request as his mother was ailing but again has been sent back without assigning any reasons. Another petitioner has been transferred from Sikar to Jalore while his father was suffering from Asthma. However, the petitioner has admitted that he has been working at Sikar since last 13 years. Petitioner has been transferred five times in eight months and his age is 52 years. Another petitioner has been transferred four times in pre-mid session while marriage of the son is fixed in February, 2007. One of the petitioner pleaded that he has been posted where there is no vacant post. Petitioner has been transferred where there were three posts available to accommodate the petitioner, the higher Officer has also requested the adjustment of the petitioner against one of the three post. Petitioner has been transferred on 22. 5. 2006, 5. 7. 2006, 10. 8. 2006 and lastly on 22. 8. 2006 and have been kept awaiting posting order. The petitioner Conductor was transferred on 17. 11. 2005, 19. 12. 2005 and 25. 3. 2006, it is shown in the transfer order that he has been transferred on his request on 25. 3. 2006. , which is not borne out from the record of the respondents. However, lastly petitioner has been transferred on 25. 6. 2006. Petitioner has not been transferred to nearby district according to the policy of the Government.
(3.) THE transfer orders have also created analogous situation where two persons are working and the transfer has been made without availability of the post. The transfer order has the effect of reversion of the petitioner to the post of Lower Division Clerk from Upper Division Clerk. Petitioner has been shown as LDC by mistake in the transfer order but he has been posted as UDC. This is just a mistake in using the word as the petitioner is a UDC and has been posted against the post of UDC. Petitioners-Doctors are husband and wife and both have been transferred by the Collector which has been challenged on the ground that the Collector has no jurisdiction. It is admitted by the respondents that the Collector has no jurisdiction but subsequently another order has been issued whereby they have been transferred back. No cause survives, as the impugned order has been recalled. In one of the petitions, the Doctor has been transferred by Chief Medical and Health Officer being bereft of jurisdiction It is also admitted by the respondents that the Chief Medical & Health Officer has no such jurisdiction. Thus, the petitioner is allowed to work and the impugned order is set aside. ;