Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 109 (RAJ)

Vijai Kumar Chejara v. State of Rajasthan

2000-02-01

V.S.KOKJE

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy for the petitioners. Miss Kusum Rao appears for the respondents and opposes admission of the matter. 2. Heard on admission. 3. The facts of the case are really shocking. On 24th Feb. 1997 the Development Officer of the Panchayat Samithi, Jaisalmer, issued an order appointing the petitioner as probationary teacher on his selection for the post. Under the directions of the Officers of the State an affidavit was taken from the petitioner that he would not apply for transfer to another District for ten years and if he violates this condition he will deposit Rs. 20,000/- in the State Treasury. A bare reading of the condition contained in Annexure-1 to the petition shows that a complete ban on inter-District transfers was intended and Rs. 20,000/- was to be imposed as penalty for violating the condition. However, in practice this was taken to be a fee for allowing an employee to apply for transfer within the stipulated period of ten years, and according to the petitioner several employees similarly situated, who had given such an undertaking, have been transferred outside the District after charging Rs. 20,000/- from them. The petitioner has annexed an order dated 28.6.1999 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, wherein it was directed that those employees who had given the undertaking not to apply for transfer within ten years of service shall not be transferred outside the District. According to the petitioner despite this, many other teachers similarly situated to him have been transferred. The petitioner submits that he has paid Rs. 20,000/- by cheque as per the condition after his transfer outside the District was ordered. He, therefore, claims to be treated equally with other teachers who were transferred outside the District within ten years of service. 4. I fail to understand as to how the State Government could commercialize its right to transfer an employee from one District to other. Imposing a condition that an employee shall not be transferred outside the District for the first ten years of his service, cannot be faulted because it is a condition of service which the employee openly accepts. But to say that he will have to pay Rs. 20,000/- as a sort of application fee for entertainment of his application for transfer outside the District, would be too much. Payment of Rs. But to say that he will have to pay Rs. 20,000/- as a sort of application fee for entertainment of his application for transfer outside the District, would be too much. Payment of Rs. 20,000/- does not also guarantee that the application for transfer will be accepted. In that case, there should have been a provision for refund of the money charged for entertaining the application. Actually, it seems that the original intention was to discourage moving applications for transfer outside the District within first ten years of service. The method adopted to discourage such tendencies and to see that the local people get employment in the District is, to say the least, crude. 5. In any case, the petitioner has no right to get himself transferred outside the District by paying Rs. 20,000/-. It is actually true that though the condition of not moving an application for transfer outside the District for ten years is binding on the employee, it is not so binding on the employer-State. If the exigencies of the administration require so, the State Government is free to transfer an employee outside the District even if such an employee has given a bond not to apply for transfer outside the District during the stipulated period. In these circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to show that any of his rights have been violated by the State. To say that other similarly situated persons were transferred, would be over- simplying the concept of equality in the matters of transfer. Because one employee was transferred the other has to be transferred, is not the spirit of Article 16. 6. I find no force in this petition, it is disposed of. However, if the State considers his case and desires to transfer him in the interest of administration, in order to maintain uniformity in the transfers, this order shall not come in its way. 7. If the petitioner is not transferred, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- if paid by him, shall be refunded to him.Petition dismissed. *******