1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.The petitioner was transferred vide order dated 25.9.2009 from one place to another and in pursuance of that order dated 25.9.2009, the petitioner was relieved on 5.10.2009 and she joined the transferred place on 6.10.2009. The copies of order dated 25.9.2009, relieving order dated 5.10.2009 and joining report letter are placed on record as Annex.1, Annex.2 and Annex.3. The contention of the petitioner was that by antidated order dated 21.9.2009, the transfer order has been amended. It is also submitted that the transfer order has been amended to accommodate the respondent no.6 only.

2. The petitioner challenged the transfer order rather say the amended order dated 29.9.2009 treating that order to be order dated 21.9.2009, by preferring appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 3.10.2009 dismissed the petitioner's appeal after observing that the petitioner joined the duties in pursuance of the order dated 25.9.2009 whereas he is challenging the order dated 21.9.2009. In this writ petition again, the petitioner took the same plea that the transfer order dated 25.9.2009 was amended anti dated by order dated 21.9.2009 as already noticed with other grounds.

3. The respondent no.6 submitted detail reply and pointed out that the petitioner came with a false plea that the order dated 25.9.2009 was amended by anti dated order dated 21.9.2009 whereas the order dated 25.9.2009 was amended vide order dated 29.9.2009. The respondent no.6 placed on record the copy of the order dated 29.9.2009. The respondent State also took the plea that the order dated 25.9.2009 was amended by the subsequent order dated 29.9.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the very foundation for the writ petition, therefore, was based on absolutely false plea and further in the order dated 25.9.2009, the respondent no.6's name is not there. However, the respondent no.6 was transferred by a separate order though it was also dated 25.9.2009.

4. It is also submitted that the respondent no.6 in pursuance of the order dated 25.9.2009 joined on the transferred post on 9.10.2009. However, when this order dated 29.9.2009 came, the petitioner was relieved from the transferee place which is clear from copy of relieving order. It is also submitted that this relieving order was also suppressed by the petitioner and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground also.

5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case and the orders referred above.

6. It appears from the above facts that initially, the transfer orders were passed for the petitioner and respondent no.6 separately but both the orders were dated 25.9.2009. Both the petitioner and the respondent no.6 were relieved from their place of original posting and they joined their new posting on 6.10.2009 and 9.10.2009 respectively which clearly proves that both the parties had no knowledge about the order which may be dated 29.9.2009 and which may not be anti dated order as projected by the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent no.6 were transferred by the schools following the orders dated 25.9.2009 on 6.10.2009 and 9.10.2009 respectively which clearly proves that the order dated 29.9.2009 did not reach to these two institutions and furthermore, the petitioner and the respondent no.6 joined the transferred places on subsequent dates much after the order dated 29.9.2009. Therefore, that order dated 29.9.2009 did not reach to the places where the petitioner and the respondent no.6 joined.

7. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the order dated 29.9.2009 was never conveyed to any of the affected parties including the schools and before that, the order dated 25.9.2009 was duly acted upon voluntarily by the petitioner and the respondent no.6 and, therefore, the orders dated 25.9.2009 were fully complied with.

8. The