JASRAJ CHOPRA, J.—The petitioner Dr. Ashok Kumar has filed this writ petition against his transfer order Annexure-1 dated 23.1.1990, which was passed during the election process, when there was a complete ban on transfers as per Annexure-2 dated 1.1.1990.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the person who passed the transfer order Annexurer-1 was not authorised to pass such transfer order and secondly, this transfer has been made in order to accommodats respondent No. 3 Dr. Anand Raj Kalla, under some political pressure at his behest. He has submitted that it is a mid-term transfer and therefore it is against the Govt. and public policy. According to the petitioner, the above action is in colourable exercise of the powers by transferring and disturbing the petitioner at least during the period when there was complete ban on transfers and further it was a mid term transfer and therefore, if it is allowed to stand, it will result in allowing such abuse of powers with a malafide intention.

3. No return has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2. However respondent No. 3 Shri Anand Raj Kalla has joined the issue with the petitioner. The respondent No.3 has raised a preliminary objection that the order of transfer falls within the definition of sec. 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (for short the Act), which provides for an alternative afficacious remedy and, therefore, the petitioner should not have approached this Court directly without availing the alternative remedy. He has further submitted that it is a case of suggestio falsi and Supressiovaeri in as much as Annexure-2 is only a news item published in the Rajasthan Patrika as regards ban on transfers. It was further submitted that the alleged notification dated 31.12.1989 being administrative instructions / executive orders does not creat any right much less a legal right in favour of the petitioner and as the same cannot be enforced by way of writ petition, this writ petition is not maintainable. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by this transferee should have made a representation to the Government. According to respondent No. 3, Dr. Ashok Kumar is posted at Jodhpur since 1981. He has created his vested interest here. He was transferred twice or thrice from Jodhpur but he managed those transfers and remained at Jodhpur. He is running his private Clinic named as Ashok Diagonestic Clinic, Opposite Umed Hospital, Jodhpur and, therefore, the petitioners transfer is in the interest of the Govt. The respondent No. 3 has further submitted that he is doing M.D. under the Head of the Department of Pathology and he has already finished his one year. According to him, on account of his posting at Ajmer, his registration of M.D, was cancelled, which was ultimately revived and it was because of this, that he has been transferred back to Jodhpur. According to respondent No. 3, this transfer order has been issued by the Government and, therefore, no concurrence of any body was necessary. He has already joined on 27.1.1990 and that fact has been suppressed by the petitioner. It is alleged that this Court in Dr. J.N. Vyas V. State of Rajasthan (1) has held that the transfer policy is not justiceable.

4. In this case, it was ordered on 30.1.1990 by this Court that in the meantime, the status quo as it exists to day shall be maintained. As on 30.1.1990 the petitioner was not relieved and respondent No. 3 Shri Anand Raj Kalla has already joined and, therefore, both the parties were allowed to continue till the election process was over.

5. I have head Mr. R.K. Charan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Hemant Choudhary, the learned Assistant Govt. Advocate and Mr. Kamal Joshi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

6. Mr. R.K. Charan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that now when the election process is over, the order Annexure-1 dated 23.1.1990 under which the petitioner has been transfe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document