Coordinate Bench cited; Court allowed writ application setting aside transfer orders dated 19.5.2018 and 2.7.2018 due to non-application of mind and inadvertence, granting liberty to pass fresh transfer order.
Set aside transfer orders dated 19.5.2018 and 2.7.2018; liberty to pass fresh transfer order if administrative exigencies require.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 12556/2018
Hari Ram Gandhi Son Of Shri Mohan Meghwal, By Caste Meghwal , Resident Of Village And Post Koliya, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, G. C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
25/07/2018
Counsel for the petitioner submit that identical controversy was raised, considered and adjudicated upon by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at principal seat at Jodhpur, in the case of Vishwajeet Singh Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. :SBCWP No.11082/2015, decided on 30th March, 2016, observing thus:
“The District Education Officer (Secondary Education) Bikaner Shri Hemant Kumar Upadhyay is present in the Court today.
He admitted that by inadvertence, it could not be
(2 of 3)
[CW-12556/2018]
mentioned in the order that the transferred employee would be entitled to transfer allowance. However, it is submitted that a corrigendum was issued on 18.12.2015 wherein, it has been provided that all the transferred employees would be entitled to transfer allowance.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that owing to this nonapplication of mind by the concerned Officer while passing the transfer order, unnecessary and unwarranted litigation has been added to the ever growing coffer of cases pending in the Court. The situation could have been avoided if the rules had been applied earnestly. The notice of the writ petition and the interim order was served upon the authorities in the month of September 2015. The rectification was effected much later i.e. in December 2015.
From the above situation, it is evident that the mistake though may be inadvertent has given rise to unnecessary litigation before this Court. The concerned official is cautioned to remain careful in future.
Thus, while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned transfer order (Annex.6) dated 11.9.2015 qua the petitioner, the interim order dated 24.9.2015 is made absolute. However, the concerned authorities are given liberty to pass a fresh lawful order for the petitioner’s 4 transfer/posting if administrative exigencies so require.”
Hence, according to learned counsel for the petitioner the application (I.A. No.44768/2017), seeking vacation of the ex-parte interim order, merits rejection.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the materials available on record so also considering the nature of impugned transfer order and the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the matter has been taken up, at this stage for final disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
Heard and considered.
Indisputably, the petitioner did not make any application for his transfer.
(3 of 3)
[CW-12556/2018]
Counsel for the State-respondents contended that it was on account of inadvertence, that the fact that the transferred employee(s) was/were entitled to transfer allowance, could not be incorporated in the order.
In view of the factual matrix and, stand of the State-respondents, as surfaced on the counter affidavit and materials available on record; non-application of mind while effecting transfer of the petitioner, is apparent on the face of record, resulting into avoidable litigation.
Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of transfer orders which are sought to be modified, while I would allow the writ application setting aside the impugned order of transfer dated 19th May, 2018 (Annexure-2), 2nd July, 2018 (Annexure R/1). However, the concerned respondent authorities would be at liberty to pass appropriate transfer order(s), afresh, transferring/posting the petitioner, if need be in administrative exigency and/or public interest or interest of administration.
No costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J
Pooja/354
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the writ application seeking setting aside of the impugned transfer order despite incidental errors in the order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vishwajeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶17
S.B. Civil Writs No. 11082/2015
Hari Ram Gandhi
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Education Department
The Director Secondary Education
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
