- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Churu dated January 16,1989, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-non-petitioner no. 1 Yamin Khan and setting aside the order of the Munsif, Churu dated December 19, 1988, dismissing his application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 Yamin Khan filed a suit for injunction in the Court of the Munsif, Churu with the allegations, in short, that he is an employee of the State of Rajasthan, he was promoted as Senior Teacher in March, 1988 and posted in Government School, Balrasar (Churu ). By order dated August 22, 1988, he was transferred from Balrasar to Ratusar (Churu), by order dated September 24, 1988, he was again transferred from Ratusar to Churu and lastly by order dated 29-9-88 he has been again transferred from Churu to Ratusar. THE last order has been challenged in the suit and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was moved for the stay of the operation of this order. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif dismissed it. On appeal, for the learned District Judge, Churu set aside the order and granted the stay by his order dated January 16, 1989 which has been challenged in this revision petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned District Judge has seriously erred in setting aside the order of the trial court without meeting the reasons advanced by him in rejecting the application and he has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order. He has further contended that the learned District Judge has not considered the fact that the impugned order dated September 29, 1988 cancelling the previous order dated September 24,1988 effected the petitioner and despite this fact, he has not impleaded him in the suit and the appeal and on this ground alone, the learned District Judge should have dismissed the appeal. He also contended that the suit has been filed on the basis of the malice against the defendant, i. e. , State of Rajasthan, Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner and District Education Officer (Students), Churu but the particulars of the malice and the names of the officers have not been mentioned. He also contended that the first transfer order dated 10-3-88 was passed on account of the promotion of the plaintiff-non-petitioner Yamin Khan, the second transfer order dated August 22,1988 was passed at his own request and in compliance thereof, he joined duty at Ratusar on September 28, 1988 only after the third transfer order dated 24-9-88 was passed transferring him to Churu. He also contended that the plaintiff-non-petitioner wanted to remain at Churu, even after his promotion as Senior Teacher. He lastly contended that the plaintiff Yamin Khan has falsely stated that he came to know about the transfer back to Ratusar on 31st of October, 1988 and in fact, he came to know about it on 4th October, 988 and he refused to take the relieving order when it was tendered on 4-10-88. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner Yamin Khan that the non-petitioner No. 1 has been transferred four times during the period of seven months in the year 1988 without any good reasons, the last transfer order transferring him from Churu to Ratusar was passed in order to accommodate the petitioner Satish Chandra and the plaintiff-non-petitioner was posted to Churu keeping in view the illness of his wife and education of his children. He also contended that an application has duly been moved before the trial court for impleading the petitioner Satish Chandra in the suit and another application has been moved for the correction of the date of the knowledge of the last transfer order. He lastly contended that the jurisdiction of the revisional court is very limited and there exists no ground for interfering with the order of the learned District Judge. It is well settled law that an appellate court should be very slow in interfering with such interlocutory order of a trial court. It is clear from the order of the learned District Judge, Churu that he has not met the reasons given by the Munsif, Churu in rejecting the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Necessary particulars regarding malice have not been given in the plaint. The names of the officers who acted so have not been given. It is clear from the plaintiff's application that he initially concealed the fact of his knowledge on 4-10-88 about the last transfer order from Churu to Ratusar. Admittedly, the petitioner Satish Chandra has not been impleaded as a party in the suit and the appeal. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner Satish Chandra is a necessary party. By the last transfer order dated 29-9-88, the plaintiff has been transferred back to Ratusar from Churu and the petitioner from Ratusar to Churu. If this order is set aside, the petitioner Satish Chandra is also effected. Admittedly, the first order dated 10-3-88 transfering the petitioner from Churu to Balrasar was passed on account of his promotion to the post of Senior Teacher. It is clear from the second order dated August 22,1988 that the petitioner sought his transfer from Balrasar and for this reason, he was not allowed travelling allowance, By this order, he was transferred from Balrasar to Ratusar. He reported on duty at Ratusar as late as on September 28,1988 after the third order dated 24-9-88 transferring him to Churu from Ratusar was passed. He remained at Ratusar only for a day as he joined at Churu the very next day, i e. . on 29-9-88. This shows that the plaintiff wanted to remain at Churu in any case. No Government servant can claim to remain at a place of his choice indefinitely. Transfer is an incident of service. The last order dated 29-9-88 cancelling the previous order dated 24-9-88 was passed when the petitioner Satish Chandra was in training. There is no substance in the plaintiff's contention that the petitioner Satish Chandra manoeuvred to get the order dated 29-9-88. in his favour.
(3.) THERE is also no force in the plaintiffs' contention that the last order dated 29-9-88 was in fact passed with back date after the ban on the transfer was imposed w. e. f. September 30,1988. In compliance with the order of the Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Bikaher dated 29-9-88, the District Education Offcer, Churu passed the order the same day. From this fact, it cannot be said that the order was actuated with malice. Churu is not at a far place from Bikaner. It is clear from this order of the Director that it was passed in pursuance of the direction of the Government of Rajasthan. Its copy was sent to the Deputy Secretary, Education (Group-II), Jaipur. The Director was bound to comply with the orders of the Government of Rajasthan All these facts and circumstances have not been taken into consideration by the learned District Judge, Churu. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain this order. If this order is allowed to stand, the petitioner will suffer an irreparable injury. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed with costs. The order of the learned District Judge, Churu dated January 16,1989 is set aside. .;