Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajpal Kaur vs State & Ors on 28 November, 2016
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.CIVIL WRIT NO. 13939 / 2016
Rajpal Kaur W/o Shri Kamalpreet Singh, Aged About
39 Years, Address: R/o 6-B, Pavanpuri (south),
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary,,
Address: Education Department (group-II) Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Address: Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Joint Director (personnel), Address: Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. Smt. Vinita Saxena, Lecturer Hindi (school
Education), Address: At Present Working At Govt.
Higher Secondary School, Deshnok, District- Bikaner.
5. Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Address:
Rajasthan, Circuit Bench At Jodhpur.
----Respondents
__________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Vyas.
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 28/11/2016 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order of transfer dated 20.10.2016 and order dated 23.11.2016, passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.10.2016 has been rejected.
(2 of 4) [CW-13939/2016] By order dated 20.10.2016, the petitioner was transferred from Barahguarh, Bikaner to Deshnok, Bikaner. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially by order dated 17.10.2016, one Kusum Khatri was transferred from Deshnok, Bikaner to City School, Bikaner and vice her Vinita Saxena was transferred from City School, Bikaner to Deshnok, Bikaner, however, by the impugned order, which was passed within three days of order dated 17.10.2016 the said Vinita Saxena was posted at Barahguarh, Bikaner and petitioner has been transferred to Deshnok, Bikaner.
It was submitted that from perusal of the order it is apparent that while petitioner has been granted T.A. and joining time the same has not been granted to Vinita Saxena, which necessarily means that the order has been made at her request, it is apparent that the transfer of the petitioner has taken place only for the purpose of accommodating Vinita Saxena and, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law.
Further submissions have been made that the orders dated 17.10.2016 and 20.10.2016 does not bear any dispatch number, which raises doubt on the working of the respondents and that the Tribunal did not deal with the submissions made by the petitioner and by merely reiterating the settled legal position (3 of 4) [CW-13939/2016] regarding transfers, has passed the order impugned and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
So far as the plea raised by counsel for the petitioner regarding accommodating respondent No.4 and, therefore, transferring the petitioner is concerned, merely because from the order impugned read with order dated 17.10.2016 it appears that respondent No.4 was initially transferred to Deshnok, Bikaner and from there she was shifted to Barahguarh, Bikaner by itself cannot make the transfer of the petitioner from Barahguarh, Bikaner to Deshnok, Bikaner bad, inasmuch as, petitioner is working at Barahguarh, Bikaner since her appointment in the year 2011.
So far as the ground pertaining to the orders dated 17.10.2016 and 20.10.2016 not bearing dispatch numbers is concerned, the petitioner herself has not disclosed the source of the said documents and it is not the case of the petitioner that she was served with the said documents, which does not bear the dispatch number.
In view thereof, nothing turns on the said deficiency pointed out by counsel for the petitioner.
(4 of 4) [CW-13939/2016] The Tribunal has found that it cannot be said that the order impugned is outcome of any mala-fides and/or is illegal, which finding cannot be said to be perverse so as to require interference by this Court.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. Sumit-190