JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is working as Supervisor in Panchayat Samiti, Newai (Tonk) has filed this writ petitioner with the prayer that Annexure - 5 dated 5.7.90 passed by the Joint Director, Informal Education, Gramin Vikash and Panchayati Raj Department, by which the respondent No.3 has been posted at Panchayat Samiti, Newai (Tonk) be quashed and the petitioner be allowed to continue as Supervisor (find Grade Teacher) Informal Education at Panchayat Samiti, Tonk. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor, Informal Education at Panchayat Samiti Newai, district Tonk by an order dated 22.9.88. He was kept awaiting posting order vide order dated 12.4.1990 with Zila Parishad, Tonk and was then posted at Panchyat Samiti, Navrangpura and the respondent No.3 was posted in place of the petitioner at Panchayat Samiti, Newai. 3. By order dated 16.6.1990, the Chief Executive Officers of the Zila Parishads were authorised to give posting orders against the vacant posts after declaring the supervisors (IInd Grade teachers) surplus and one post of Super,visor (1Ind Grade teacher) was allotted to each district and the Chief Executive Officers were directed to fill these posts from amongst the surplus Supervisors.By order dated 29.6.1990, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk posted respondent No.3 Chiranjilal Jain as Head Master, Government Upper Primary School, Navrangpura and the petitioner was posted as Supervisor (Informal Education), Panchayat Samiti, Tonk. The petitioner joined his duty at Panchayat Samiti, Tonk. However, the Joint Director (Informal Education), Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department issued an order on 5.7.1990 posting the respondent No.3 at Panchayat Samiti, Tonk. 4. According to the petitioner, posting orders of Supervisors (Gr.II teachers) could be given by the Chief Executive Officer and the Government had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner had been posted at Panchayat Samiti, Tonk by the Chief Executive Officer in view of the administrative exigencies and in view of the complaints and criminal case against the respondent No.3. The Chief Executive Officer himself had written a detailed letter to the Joint Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayat Raj Department against the respondent No.3, but with an ulterior motive, the Joint Director posted the respondent No.3 at Panchayat Samiti, Tonk. This action is also against the declared policy of the Government imposing ban against transfer/posting. The Chief Executive Officer himself had written a detailed letter to the Joint Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayat Raj Department against the respondent No.3, but with an ulterior motive, the Joint Director posted the respondent No.3 at Panchayat Samiti, Tonk. This action is also against the declared policy of the Government imposing ban against transfer/posting. The situation created by the respondent No.1 has resulted in posting of two persons at the same place and the respondent No.3 is being continued despite the fact that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk as well as pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Tonk had written for retention of the petitioner. 5. In reply to the writ petition, the respondent No.3 has disputed that post of Supervisor is controlled by the Government, whereas the posting of Teachers Gr.II is controlled by the Zila Parishads. The petitioner was posted on deputation as Supervisor. He held this post till 12.4.1990. His deputation was cancelled on 12.4.1990 and he was sent back to the Panchayat Samiti. The Chief Executive Officer was required to issue posting order of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 had been posted as Supervisor at Panchayat Samiti, Newai. The Government had issued Circular dated 7.10.1989 in which it was made clear that the posts of Supervisors will be filled by the Government only. The same circular was again reiterated in another Circular dated 2.7.1990. The Government had issued order dated 11.6.1990, by which 4 posts of Supervisor were declared surplus in Tonk District and the Chief Executive Officers were directed to absorb the surplus staff. Respondent No.3 was posted as Supervisor (Informal Education) by the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 26.6.1990. Respondent No.3 has further stated that the petitioner had never joined at Navrangpura on 26.6.1990. Respondent No.3 has submitted that once deputation of the petitioner had been cancelled by the Government vide order dated 12.4.1990, it was not open to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk to post the petitioner as Supervisor, and therefore, the order issued on 29.6.1990 is void. Respondent No.3 has further asserted that the order dated 5.7.1990 was correctly passed by the Joint Director(Informal Education) Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and he had joined at Panchayat Samiti, Tonk on 7.7.1990 in pursuance of the order dated 5.7.1990. 6. Respondent No.3 has further asserted that the order dated 5.7.1990 was correctly passed by the Joint Director(Informal Education) Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and he had joined at Panchayat Samiti, Tonk on 7.7.1990 in pursuance of the order dated 5.7.1990. 6. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply, in which he has again reiterated his position that he was entitled to be posted as Supervisor at Panchayat Samiti, Tonk. He further submitted that by order dated 28.6.1990, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk had cancelled his earlier transfer order dated 26.6.1990. 7. A perusal of the Circular dated 7.10.1989 (Annexure R.3/2) clearly shows that the Government had taken note of the fact that the Chief Executive Officers were posting the Supervisors in the Schools at their own end and were also issuing transfer orders of the Supervisors (Informal Education) from one Panchayat Samiti to another. The Government, therefore, directed that the Super,visors (Informal Education) will be transferred/posted by the Government only. It was specifically directed that the Chief Executive Officers shall not issue orders of transfer of Supervisors (Informal Education) at their own level. This was again emphasised by the Government in its Circular dated 2.7.1990. It is clearly borne out from the record of the case that the petitioner's deputation as Supervisor had been cancelled by the Government by order dated 12.4.1990. This order has not been assailed by the petitioner. Thus the Court has to proceed on the premise that the petitioner's deputation as Supervisor stands legally terminated. The Government had issued clear instructions to the Chief Executive officers of various Zila Parishads not to issue posting/transfer orders of the Supervisors. Therefore, the order dated 29.6.1990 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk by treating the petitioner to be still working as Supervisor was clearly erroneous and without jurisdiction. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit on the basis of such order passed by the Chief Executive Officer. The Joint Director(Informal Education) was fully competent to issue transfer/posting orders of the Super,visors. Moreover, it has not been shown by the petitioner as to which of his legal or fundamental right has been violated by order dated 5.7.1990. The petitioner cannot derive any benefit on the basis of such order passed by the Chief Executive Officer. The Joint Director(Informal Education) was fully competent to issue transfer/posting orders of the Super,visors. Moreover, it has not been shown by the petitioner as to which of his legal or fundamental right has been violated by order dated 5.7.1990. In my opinion, no case has been made out by the petitioner warranting interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition Dismissed. *******