The petitioner, who is a Stock Assistant in the Directorate of Livestock Production Extension and Artificial Insemination has challenged through this Constitutional petition his transfer order. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was serving as such at Shakargarh and was transferred on 19- 2-1989 to Manglia District Gujrat but this transfer was cancelled on 15-4-1989. However, this order of cancellation was rescinded on 14-5-1989. The result was that the original transfer order stood restored. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation and he was temporarily posted at Nurkot vide order dated 21-5-1989. Thereafter petitioner filed the present petition on 19-8-1989. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance and contested the petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the petitioner was transferred at the behest of local M.PA., who has been impleaded as respondent No, 3, therefore, the order is not legal. It is added that whole exercise is mala fide.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No, 3 and the Departmental representative have submitted that the petitioner was relieved on 20-5-1988 and thereafter he assumed charge at Nurkot on 22-5-1989 and was working as such. It is added that the petitioner was posted at Nurkot as per his own request and he accepted this order. It is concluded that the petitioner not only is estopped by his own conduct to file the present petition but the same also suffers from laches.
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of both sides. The petitioner relinquished the charge on 20-5-1989 and assumed charge at Nurkot on 22-5-1989. The petitioner in order to get the impugned order dated 19-2-1989 suspended concealed this material fact. This is not all. The petitioner after the order dated 14-5-1989 proceeded to make an application for his posting at Nurkot. This application was considered and granted. This way the petitioner accepted the impugned transfer. Moreover, the present petition was filed on 19-8-1989 and there is no explanation for the time intervening between the 21-5-1989, his posting at Nurkot and filing of the petition. This way there is clear delay of about three months, which is sufficient laches for a transfer matter.
5. The petitioner is not only guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts but also estopped by his own conduct to challenge the impugned order of A transfer after having accepted and acted upon the same. The petition also suffers from delay of almost three months.
6. The result is that there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.