Dr. Jogdand Ashok Laxman Rao vs State & Anr on 14 November, 2008

                                       1

             S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5769/2008



                     Dr.Jogdand Ashok Laxman Rao
                                 v.
                      State of Rajasthan & Anr.



        Date of Order            ::          14 th November, 2008



                HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR


Mr. S.P.Sharma, for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, for the respondents.

                                      ....



               The     petitioner,           an      Assistant       Surgeon

(Veterinary),           was      transferred          from        Veterinary

Hospital,       Paldi     (Nagaur)         to      Veterinary      Hospital,

Chhoti Khatu. The transfer aforesaid was said to be

made    at     the     request        of   the      petitioner      himself.
However, the petitioner denied that and claimed for

travelling allowance and joining time as a consequent

to his transfer under the order dated 31.7.2007. By an

another order dated 28.6.2008 the petitioner is again

subjected to transfer from Chhoti Khatu to Veterinary

Hospital, Karnu in District Nagaur and again he is

said to be transferred at his own request.



               While    challenging          the    order    of     transfer

dated 28.6.2008,         the     contention of         counsel      for   the

petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred

under    the    orders        dated    31.7.2007      and    28.6.2008     by
                                       2

showing the same made under his own request though no

such request was ever made.



            This    court      on    14.8.2008          issued     notice     to

show cause to the respondents and after service of the

same matter was listed before the Court on 23.10.2008.

On 23.10.2008 counsel for the respondents sought time

to file reply to the writ petition and the matter was

adjourned    for     3.11.2008.           After       getting    the     matter

adjourned, the Director, Animal Husbandry, passed an

order dated 3.11.2008 making a correction in the order

dated 28.6.2008 to treat transfer of the petitioner in

administrative exigency instead of at his own request.

Nothing is said in reply to the writ petition relating

to the order dated 31.7.2007. No reason is given by

the respondents as to why the petitioner was shown to

be    transferred    at    his      own    request       under     the   order

dated    31.7.2007        as   well        as     in    the     order    dated

28.6.2008. In very casual manner it is stated that the

transfer    of     the    petitioner            was     actually    made      in

administrative exigency but by mistake it was shown as

effected at his own request. On asking, counsel for

the    respondents       utterly     failed        to    satisfy       how   the

error occurred relating to the petitioner twice and

why no joining time and travelling allowance is yet

allowed to the petitioner for the transfer made under

order dated 31.7.2007.
                                          3



                 Though    in       normal   course     the    Court     is   not

required         to     ask     for    the      administrative          exigency

warranting transfer of the petitioner, however, in the

instant matter, looking to the dubious circumstances,

the Court asked counsel for the respondents to give

reason or to satisfy the administrative exigency for

effecting transfer of the petitioner within a period

of 11 months and that too by showing his transfer at

his own request. The respondents patently failed to

satisfy court's query. The respondents also failed to

satisfy as to how the error relating to the petitioner

occurred twice and why no joining time and travelling

allowance is yet given to him as a consequent to the

order       of     transfer         dated     31.7.2007.        It     is     also

pertinent to note that corrigendum to the order dated

28.6.2008          was        not     issued      by     the         respondents

immediately           after     receiving        notices       of     the     writ

petition but was made after seeking time to file reply

to    the        writ     petition       i.e.     on         3.11.2008.       The

circumstances of the case left me with no option but

to infer that the transfer of the petitioner was not

in    administrative            exigency      but      was    for     extraneous

consideration.



                 For the reasons whatever stated above, this

petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore,

the     same      is     allowed.       The     order        dated     28.6.2008

transferring the petitioner from Veterinary Hospital,
                                4

Chhoti    Khatu   to   Veterinary   Hospital,   Karnu,   stands

quashed.



            No order to costs.

                                        ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

kkm/ps.