Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 785 (RAJ)

Hanuman Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-14

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-Heard at admission stage. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 29.1.2005 (Annexure 3) may be quashed and set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Grade II by the respondent- Department on 4.1997 at Government Secondary School, Ajitsar, Dist. Churu and since then he is regularly working as teacher Grade II and is discharging his duties with zeal and dedication in rural area. 3. Further case of the petitioner is that Deputy Director transferred the petitioner from Govt. Secondary School Rajpura to Government Bagla Senior Secondary School, Churu by order dated 29.2004 vice the respondent Smt. Saroj Chaudhary. 4. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner joined his duties at Govt. Bagla Sr. Higher Secondary School, Churu. 5. Respondent No. 4 Smt. Saroj Chaudhary filed a writ petition before this Court, bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5277/2004 impleading the petitioner as respondent No. 4. 6. This Court vide order dated 12.2004 directed the respondents to consider her representation in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said representation. 7. In pursuance of direction of this Honble Court, the respondent No. 4 submitted a representation and on her representation, the respondent No. 2 - Director passed an order dated 29.1.2005 (Annexure 3) transferring the petitioner back to Government Secondary School Rajpura from Churu and adjusted Smt. Saroj Chaudhary in his place at Churu without giving any hearing to the petitioner. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.2.2005 (Annexure. 4) dismissed the same. 9. In this writ petition, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has served in rural area for last about eight years and was transferred in urban area only four months back, whereas the respondent No. 4 has not served in rural area so far. It has also been argued that the present order of transfer has been passed only in order to accommodate the respondent No. 4. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and scrutinised and scanned the material available on record. It has also been argued that the present order of transfer has been passed only in order to accommodate the respondent No. 4. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and scrutinised and scanned the material available on record. 11. The learned Tribunal has recorded a categoric finding on the basis of material available on record that the petitioner has been transferred in mala fide manner or against the law. The impugned order of transfer has been passed in administrative exigencies. 12. In my considered opinion, the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the Tribunal are erroneous or preverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. The findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. 13. Apart from that, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the inferior Court or Tribunal, unless its findings are clearly perverse or patently unreasonable. While exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as Court of appeal. 14. The High Courts power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power not will the High Court, in exercise of this power, substitute its own Judgment for that of the inferior Court, whether on a question of fact, or of law, or interfere with the intra vires exercise of a discretionary power, unless it is arbitrary or capricious, or unless there was no evidence at all on which the inferior Court could have come to conclusion that there was error of finding on a jurisdiction fact. 15. From perusing the order dated 16.2.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal, it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse. 16. 15. From perusing the order dated 16.2.2005 passed by the learned Tribunal, it does not reveal that there is patent illegality and irregularity or error of law apparent on the face of record and the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse. 16. Be that as it may, during the course of argument, it has been requested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. Since the request of the petitioner is only for consideration of the representation, therefore, the instant petition is disposed of at this stage by giving a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law only. 9.17. Thus, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the petitioner is directed to file a representation within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same either way in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of representation. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in accordance with law, then the same may be given to the petitioner and if the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief sought for, then a reasoned and speaking order may be passed strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.