Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1548 (RAJ)

Ram Pyari v. State of Rajasthan

2002-09-06

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 1-7-2002, with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned transfer order dated 14-6-2002 (Annex. P/13) passed by the Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner, Camp Jaipur (respondent No. 2) by which the petitioner was transferred from Primary Health Centre Gharsana to Primary Health Centre Padampur (Distt. Sri Ganganagar) be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under : i) That the petitioner was initially appointed as Female Nurse Grade Il vide order dated 14-10-1993 and posted at Bikaner. She joined at Bikaner on 17-10-1993 and worked there up to 21-5-1999. The petitioner thereafter made a request to the concerned authority that she might be posted in Sri Ganganagar District as she belongs to Distt. Sri Ganganagar. On her request, the respondent No. 2 passed an order on 22-5-99 (Annex. P/1) transferring the petitioner from Bikaner Distt. to Sri Ganganagar and she was posted at Gharsana, Distt. Sri Ganganagar. In pursuance of order dated 22-5-99, the petitioner joined at Gharsana on 28-5-99. ii) That vide an order dated 11-2-2001 (Annex. P/2), the petitioner was again transferred from Gharsana to Rawla in the same District. She made a request to the respondent No. 3 (Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar) that the transfer order dated 11-2-2001 (Annex. P/2) be cancelled and she should be allowed to be posted at Gharsana and at her request, the transfer order dated 11-2-2001 was cancelled vide order dated 29-3-2001 (Annex. P/3) passed by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No. 3) NOTE : Thus, it is clear that from the pleadings of the petitioner herself that transfer of the petitioner, which was made from Gharsana to Rawla was cancelled at her own request. iii) The further case of the petitioner is that order dated 29-3-2001 (Annex. P/3) was cancelled by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 4-5-2001 (Annex. P/4) and she was again directed to join at Rawla and therefore, she joined her duties at Rawla on 8-52001. iv) It is further submitted by the petitioner that vide order dated 21-5-2001 (Annex. P/5) passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was again posted to Gharsana. P/3) was cancelled by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 4-5-2001 (Annex. P/4) and she was again directed to join at Rawla and therefore, she joined her duties at Rawla on 8-52001. iv) It is further submitted by the petitioner that vide order dated 21-5-2001 (Annex. P/5) passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was again posted to Gharsana. NOTE : Thus, though she joined at Rawla on 8-5-2001, but she was again transferred at Gharsana within a period of 13 days and this should be at her own request. v) The further case of the petitioner is that through order dated 8-6-2001 (Annex. P/6) passed by Dy. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Anupgarh, she was again transferred from Gharsana to Sri Ganganagar and she joined at Sri Ganganagar on 10-6-2001, but through order dated 11-6-2001 (Annex. P/7) passed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner was retransferred to her original i.e. Gharsana. NOTE : This fact also reveals that she was transferred from Gharsana to Sri Ganganagar on 8-6-2001 and within three days she was transferred to Gharsana and it should also be at her own request. vi) That the further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was again transferred from Gharsana to Rawla vide order dated 15-3-2002 passed by respondent No. 2 and through order dated 17-3-2002 (Annex. P/8) passed by the Medical Officer, Gharsana, the petitioner was relieved to join at Rawla. In pursuance of order dated 17-3-2002 (Annex. P/8), the petitioner joined at Rawla on 18-3-2002. Thereafter she made a request to respondent No. 3 to give her posting at Gharsana and the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 21-3-2002 (Annex. P/9) stayed the operation of order dated 17-3-2002 (Annex, P/8). meaning thereby that she remained at the place of her choice, i.e. Gharsana. NOTE : This also shows that she did not want to leave Gharsana. vii) The further case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 4-4-2002 (Annex. P/10) passed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner was again transferred from Gharsan to Gomewali, Sub-Division Anoopgarh and in pursuance of order dated 4-4-2002 (Annex. P/10) she was relieved vide order 11-4-2002 (Annex. P/11) passed by the Medical Officer, Gharsana. The petitioner joined at Gomewali on 14-4-2002. Surprisingly, the order dated 11-4-2002 (Annex. P/10) passed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner was again transferred from Gharsan to Gomewali, Sub-Division Anoopgarh and in pursuance of order dated 4-4-2002 (Annex. P/10) she was relieved vide order 11-4-2002 (Annex. P/11) passed by the Medical Officer, Gharsana. The petitioner joined at Gomewali on 14-4-2002. Surprisingly, the order dated 11-4-2002 (Annex. P/11) by which the petitioner was transferred from Gharsana to Gomewali was further stayed by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 15-4-2002 (Annex. P/12) and she was directed to join at Gharsana. NOTE : This also goes to show that within few days she was again directed to join at Gharsana i.e. her original place of posting. viii) Now the further case of the petitioner is that through order dated 14-6-2002 (Anex. P/13) passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was again transferred from Gharsana to Padampur and this order has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and they have raised two main submissions : i) That this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner should have first approached Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. ii) That since transfer is an incident of service and the petitioner has been transferred on account of administrative exigencies, therefore, this Court should not interfere in such matter and therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred frequently and thus, the impugned order dated 146-2002 (Annex. P/13) passed by respondent No. 2 is a mala fide order and it should be quashed and the writ petition should be allowed. 5. On point of frequent transfer, the case of the respondents is that whenever she was transferred, she got the transfer order cancelled and, therefore, her case should not be treated as a case of frequent transfer. 6. I have heard both and perused the record. 7. It may be stated that this Court on 4-7-2002 passed an order by which the Secretary, Department of Medical and Health (respondent No. 1) was directed to enquire into the matter that the petitioner was transferred so many times and the Secretary, Medical and Health Services (respondent No. 1) has submitted his detailed report in compliance of order dated 4-7-2002. It may be stated that this Court on 4-7-2002 passed an order by which the Secretary, Department of Medical and Health (respondent No. 1) was directed to enquire into the matter that the petitioner was transferred so many times and the Secretary, Medical and Health Services (respondent No. 1) has submitted his detailed report in compliance of order dated 4-7-2002. From the report submitted by the respondent No. 1, following facts have emerged : i) That transfers of the petitioners were made most of times at her own request. ii) That since 28-5-99, she remained outside Gharsana only for 15 days. iii) There were complaints also against the behaviour of the petitioner during her stay at Gharsana. iv) That the impugned order dated 14-6-2002 (Annex. P/13) has been passed in administrative exigencies. 8. In my opinion, this writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons : i) That as stated above, all the transfers which have been made from Gharsana some other place were cancelled/stayed at her own request. Moreover, the plea that she was subjected to frequent transfer because of mala fides cannot be accepted. ii) That jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the transfer lies only when the order of transfer appears to be mala fide and in this case aspect is missing. iii) Apart from this since transfer is an incident of service and therefore, it does not require consent of employee and public servant has no vested right to seek transfer to a location of his/her choice, From this point of view also, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. iv) Further since in the present case, the petitioner has been transferred after a lapse of near about 2 years, therefore, also the transfer order dated 14-6-2002, (Annex. P/ 13) does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and no interference is called for in the transfer order dated 14-6-2002 (Annex. P/13) passed by the respondent No. 2.Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.Cost made easy.Petition dismissed. *******