- (1.) PETITIONER, who is presently working as Supervisor, from the date of his initially appointment since July, 1975, remained at Jaipur for almost whole of the period while availing promotion as UDC, Office Assistant as also Supervisor and this fact has not been controverted by counsel for petitioner.
(2.) AS is evident from the record, he was transferred from Jaipur City to Nagaur vide order dated 25/09/2009 which he assailed before Service Tribunal by filing appeal and the same has been rejected vide order dated 13/10/2009. It is not the case of the petitioner that the post held by him is not a transferable post. His grievance is twofold that the incumbent, who has been transferred vice him, also remained for sufficient long time in Jaipur and was transferred to Nagaur only on probation and to accommodate him the petitioner has been displaced by the order impugned and he further submit that his wife is not maintaining good health and needs his assistance and she is under treatment in Jaipur Hospital and in such circumstances, it is not possible for the petitioner to carry out the order of transfer. As already observed, when the petitioner has remained posted throughout in Jaipur and he is holding a transferable post, certainly cannot create a lien in Jaipur till he attains the age of superannuation. Transfers are the incident of service which do not affect either of the service conditions of the employees and it is always for the administration to examine in regard to posting of employees whenever require in the interest of administration or in exigencies of service as and when arise. The petitioner has not imputed any malice against the authority who has passed the order impugned and it is also not his case that there is a violation of any statutory rules. So far as submission made in regard to accommodating respondent No.3 is concerned, suffice it to say that a person like petitioner, who himself remained posted throughout his service career at Jaipur, at least cannot raise grievance in regard to others accommodation. So far as the illness of his wife is concerned, it is a general problem with every employee but that cannot be considered to be solitary ground for interference within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, however, it is always open for the administration to examine. The learned Tribunal has also considered the submissions raised by the petitioners in detail but did not find favour. This Court has also gone through the order impugned passed by the Tribunal and does not find any manifest error which may call for interference. Consequently, the instant writ petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ;