Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1504 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Vijay Kumar Yadav

2019-05-15

ALOK SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. A challenge has been made to the order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Jaipur (hereafter the Tribunal) whereby the appeal filed by the respondent, a Lecturer (Architecture) posted at the Government RC Polytechnic College, Jaipur, against the order of his transfer dated 8.3.2019 as Lecturer (Civil) to Government Women Polytechnic College Barmer, has been allowed. 2. The facts of the case are that vide order dated 8.3.2019 the petitioner was transferred from the post of Lecturer (Architecture) Government RC Polytechnic College, Jaipur to the post of Lecturer (Civil), Government Women Polytechnic College Barmer. The order dated 8.3.2019 was put to challenge by the respondent before the Tribunal on the ground that since he was a Lecturer (Architecture) his transfer to the post of Lecturer (Civil), a wholly distinct post was illegal. Further he was not being allowed traveling allowance and joining time, which was against Rule 17(1)(4) of the Rajasthan Travelling Allowance Rules, 1971 and Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Charge Taking Period Rules, 1984. The Tribunal considering the submissions of the parties and the fact that the respondent a Lecturer (Architecture) was illegally transferred as Lecturer (Civil) a distinct post-vide its impugned order dated 29.3.2019 quashed the transfer order of the respondent. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, AAG appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was substantial commonality in the subject of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the undergraduate level in the Government Polytechnic colleges and the mere fact that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Architecture) and was transferred against the post of Lecturer (Civil) Engineering was of no event. He submitted that it was a public interest that the vacant post of Lecturer (Civil) Engineering at the Government Women Polytechnic College Barmer be filled up and the students at the said college be instructed. He further submitted that the petitioner on his transfer suffers no prejudice in his pay, allowances, seniority and service prospectus in the future and hence cannot at all be held to be aggrieved by the impugned transfer to invoke the courts jurisdiction. 4. Perused the order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The impugned order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Tribunal quashing the transfer order dated 8.3.2019 is well considered and founded on cogent reasons. 4. Perused the order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The impugned order dated 29.3.2019 passed by the Tribunal quashing the transfer order dated 8.3.2019 is well considered and founded on cogent reasons. So far the notification dated 17.4.2017, as argued by Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, is concerned it has no relevance as the respondent is only a Lecturer and not a Head of the Department. Holding the post of Lecturer (Architecture)-a post distinct from that of Lecturer (Civil Engineering) where seniority is separately maintained for the two posts in issue in the department of technical education, the petitioner could not have been transferred on the post of Lecturer (Civil). Yet in the instant case the petitioners have transferred the respondent by changing his wing from Architecture to Civil. Besides the petitioners have also not ordered payment of traveling allowance to the respondent nor allowed joining time contrary to the Rule 17(1)(4) of the Rules of 1971 and Rule 4 of the Rules of 1984. Considering these facts the Tribunal has rightly quashed the impugned transfer order and committed no illegality. 7. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal requires no interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it suffers neither from any illegality nor perversity in the exercise of discretion. There is thus no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.