Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishan Kumar Arora vs Raj. State Road Tran. Corpn. & Ors on 4 April, 2011
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
1
20 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2462/2011
Krishan Kumar Arora
Vs.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
.......
Date of Order :: 4th April 2011
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Harish Purohit,for the petitioner.
.....
BY THE COURT
The petitioner, serving as a Conductor with the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and having been transferred from Sriganganagar depot to Matsya Nagar depot at Alwar, has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the transfer order.
It is contended that the petitioner was transferred on 21.09.2010 from Hanumangarh depot to Sriganganagar depot and within a short span of five months, has been transferred again and that too, to a distant place like Alwar, without any reason or basis. It is also contended that several other persons are working at Sriganganagar for over 20 years but the petitioner has unnecessarily been picked up for transfer to a distant place. It is submitted that the petitioner is a low-paid employee and such transfer to a distant place is likely to cause serious prejudice to him and his family.
The submissions aforesaid hardly make out a case for interference in the transfer order by this Court in the writ jurisdiction.
2
The transfer has, otherwise, not been challenged on the ground of want of authority or malafide. The suggestions as made by the petitioner about the respondent not transferring other persons of longer stay and not applying the transfer policy have their own shortcomings. Merely because some other persons have remained posted at the depot for 20 years, or because he was earlier transferred in the month of September 2010 from Hanumangarh to Sriganganagar, the petitioner cannot urge that he may not be transferred. The other submissions also appear baseless as the petitioner, while holding a transferable post, cannot make a legal grievance against the transfer order. Moreover, it appears that in relation to the problems or difficulties or any of his other contentions, the petitioner has not even made a representation to the authorities concerned.
The petitioner is, of course, free to make a representation to the authorities concerned but there appears no reason to exercise writ jurisdiction at the instance of the petitioner against the transfer order.
Subject to the observations foregoing, the writ petition stands rejected.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.
/S.Soni/