Dismissed

Praveen Lata v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2016CW/14430/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an appeal against a government employee's transfer. The court held that mere accommodation of another employee or minor allergies were insufficient grounds to interfere with the transfer order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no interference in the impugned order of transfer.

Praveen Lata Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B.CIVIL WRIT NO. 14430 / 2016

¶3

Praveen Lata W/o Kamal Kumar Goyal, Aged About 50 Years, Address: R/o 16, Chanakya Nagar, Bikaner

¶4

----Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through Secretary,, Address: Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Director, Address: Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner 3. Deputy Director, Address: Secondary Education, Bikaner Division, Bikaner.

¶7

District Education Officer, Address: Secondary Education, Bikaner

¶8

Principal, Address: Govt. Maharani Balika Senior Secondary School, Bikaner.

¶9

Tapasya Paliwal, Address: Presently Working At Govt. Maharani Balika Senior Secondary School, Bikaner

¶10

Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Address: Circuit Bench Jodhpur, Through Its Chairman.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. Arjun Purohit.

¶13

For Respondents :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶15

Order

¶16

07/12/2016

¶17

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order of transfer dated 16.10.2016 and order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (‘the Tribunal’) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.10.2016 has been rejected.

¶18

(2 of 3 )

¶19

[CW-14430/2016]

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal did not consider the issues raised by the petitioner and has decided the appeal by indicating the general principles governing the transfer of Government Employees and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

¶22

From the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is true that the Tribunal has made observations that the order of transfer cannot be said to be illegal or mala-fide and based on the observations, has dismissed the appeal without considering the submissions made by the petitioners. However, having considering the submissions as made by petitioner in the appeal as well as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is apparently no reason to interfere with the order of transfer passed by the respondents.

¶23

The petitioner is working at the present place of posting for last several years, the ground raised in the petition is that she has been transferred for accommodating respondent No.6. The transfer of the petitioner cannot be examined merely from the point of view of alleged accommodation of respondent No.6. It has also to be examined keeping in view as to for how long the petitioner is serving at the same place and, therefore, merely because somebody else has been posted at petitioner’s place, may be from the place where the respondent No.6 was

¶24

(3 of 3 )

¶25

[CW-14430/2016]

¶26

transferred few months back, cannot be a enough reason to interfere with the order impugned.

¶27

The other ground of physical problems raised by the petitioner also has no substance, inasmuch as, the medical report produced by the petitioner indicates allergy and the allergies indicated cannot be said to be curable/treatable only at the place where petitioner is presently serving.

¶28

In view thereof, no interference is called for in the order impugned. There is no substance in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶29

(ARUN BHANSALI)J.

¶30

Sumit-142

Praveen Lata v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Lata v. State of Rajasthan 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

Pushpendra Kumar Khatik Vs State and Ors.

Sukhendra Singh Vs State and Ors.

Bhagwati Bishnoi Vs State and Ors.

Lrs of Late Sh. Indermal Vs Takhat Singh

Ratan Lal Vs Ashok Kumar

Kalawati Vs State and Ors.