Disposed

Narendra Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2018CW/15729/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged transfer to a distant location alleging malafides and MLA influence. Court found no evidence of bias in the transfer order and directed officials to address the pending representation within two weeks before disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Representation to be considered by respondents within two weeks. Writ petition disposed of.

Narendra Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15729/2018

¶3

Narendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Shivpal Singh, Aged About 47 Years, At Present Holding The Post Of Junior Specialist (Child), Community Health Centre, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health (Group - Ii), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh.

¶8

The Senior Medical Officer In-Charge, Community Health Centre, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh.

¶9

Dropadi Meghwal, Mla, Legislative Assembly Area Pilibangan, R/o Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria. For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

08/10/2018

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 27.6.2018 (Annex.P/4), whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from CHC Rawatsar, Hanumangarh to CHC Sankada, Jaisalmer.

¶16

It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was posted at Rawatsar by order dated 2.6.2017, where he joined on the same day. By order dated 3.7.2017 (Annex.P/3), one Dr. Gouri Shankar was directed to be authorized to work as In-charge of the CHC Rawatsar. It is alleged

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-15729/2018]

¶19

that the said action was taken on account of the recommendation made by the MLA Pilibanga, which fact is evident from communication of CMHO annexed with Annex.P/3. Therafter, by impugned order dated 27.6.2018, the petitioner has been transferred.

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner by the impugned order is based on malafides, which is reflected from the order Annex.P/3, which was passed on the recommendation of the local MLA. Submissions have been made that by the impugned order dated 27.6.2018, out of 57 persons transferred, only 9 persons were granted the joining time and T.A. and only the petitioner out of 9 persons, has been sent to a distant place, whereas several posts in and around the place the petitioner is presently working are lying vacant and even at the CHC, Rawatsar, the petitioner was the only Pediatrician and there are large number of patients, who are required to be looked after, which fact is evident from communication dated 20.7.2018 (Annex.P/5) and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶21

Further submission has been made that the petitioner had given representation for changing his place of posting i.e. he may be posted in and around the place from where he has been transferred, however, the same has not been responded to by the respondents.

¶22

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

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-15729/2018]

¶25

A bare look at the order impugned would indicate that as many as 57 persons have been transferred by the respondents and merely because out of 9 persons, who have been granted joining time and T.A., the petitioner has been posted at farthest place, cannot be a reason to assume the malafides.

¶26

The reliance placed on the document Annex.P/3 is dated 3.7.2017 and the order impugned has been passed on 27.6.2018, there is no reflection in the order dated 27.6.2018 so as to assume that the said order has been passed on account of the malafides of the local MLA. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the order impugned on the grounds as raised in the writ petition.

¶27

Insofar as, the non-consideration of the representation, which is stated to be pending with the respondents, the petitioner may pursue his representation and if the petitioner makes an application to the respondents, the respondents would deal with the pending representation / fresh representation, within a period of two weeks from the date, the same is made by the petitioner with the respondents.

¶28

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

¶29

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶30

sumit-162

Narendra Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan

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

Meenakshi Koted Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Chander Vs State of Rajasthan

Manager Director,Manak Cement and Ors. Vs Smt.Meera and Ors.

Madhu Ujwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Reena Joshi and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Deepika Sharma Vs State and Ors.