Disposed

Murari Lal Rawat v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2009CW/7909/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, a Junior Engineer, challenged transfers to APO and another location, claiming no vacancy at his original post. High Court held no traces of malafide and declined interference, allowing a fresh representation to the respondent within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. Petitioner set at liberty to make a representation to the State within eight weeks for reconsideration of his transfer.

Murari Lal Rawat Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7909/2007.

¶5

: :

¶6

Murari Lal Rawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶7

: :

¶8

Date of Order 1.4.2009

¶9

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶10

Mr. Ashok Bansal for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed by respondents challenging the orders dated 31.7.2007, 10.9.2007 and 28.9.2007.

¶13

Shri Ashok Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is working on the post of Junior Engineer in Watershed Development and Soil Conservation Department and working under the Panchayati Raj Department of the State. He was posted at Srimadhopur on 15.7.2006. He was therefrom transferred to Bikaner by order dated 31.7.2007 where no post found vacant,

¶14

¶15

therefore, the petitioner was kept APO at Jaipur and again by order dated 10.9.2007 he was transferred to Chohatan in District Barmer whereas the post in Srimadhopur is still lying vacant.

¶16

Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that there were two sanctioned posts of Junior Engineer at Srimadhopur, after reallocation of work in Water Shed Department one post was available and on that post Shri K. K. Sharma is working in compliance of stay order passed by this Court. The petitioner could not be allocated to that post at Panchayat Samiti, Srimadhopur and, therefore, he was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Chohatan by impugned order dated 10.9.2007 where the post was available.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted this fact and submitted that Shri K. K. Sharma has since been promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer by order dated 28.6.2008 and has been transferred at Barmer.

¶18

It is trite law that this Court can make in such matters interference only if it is shown that the order of

¶19

¶20

transfer is passed in violation of statutory rule or for the reason of proven malafide.

¶21

Having regard to the facts of the case, no interference can be made with the impugned order. In the changed circumstances, even if post at Srimadhopur is available, it is for the respondents to consider whether or not transfer the petitioner on that post. At the same time however, the petitioner is set at liberty to make a representation to the respondents, which they shall consider and decide within a period of eight weeks. Stay order dated 28.9.2007 passed by this Court shall continue for the aforesaid period of eight weeks only and would lapse thereafter.

¶22

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation.

¶23

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J.

¶24

A.Arora/Item No.27.

Murari Lal Rawat v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murari Lal Rawat v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhag Chand Vs R.S.R.T.C.

Vasudev Vs R P S C Ajmer

Mohar Singh Vs the Chairman U.I.T.Alwar andORS

Gulab Chand Meena Vs State and Ors.

Heera Lal Damore Vs State and Ors.

Mohemmed Zahid Vs State of Raj and Ors.