In a service matter, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order placing the petitioner on Awaiting Posting Orders and transferring him. The court held that the impugned order was well-reasoned and did not call for interference despite the petitioner's complaints about facts and RTI response.
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 6919/2018
Sanjay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kishan Lal Sharma, Resident Of 12, Bhagat Singh Colony, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Sharma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order
13/11/2018
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 7.2.2018 (Annex.3), whereby, the petitioner was placed under Awaiting Posting Orders (‘APO’), order dated 23.2.2018 (Annex.6), whereby, the petitioner was transferred to G.G.S.S.S. Suraj Mal Bhutoria – Ladnun, Nagaur and order dated 20.4.2018 (Annex.10), whereby representation made by the petitioner has been rejected.
It is, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner has been transferred 350 kms away from the place of present posting, the petitioner approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3163/2018, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the respondents by way of an appropriate representation.
(2 of 3) [CW-6919/2018]
The petitioner filed a detailed representation, which has been rejected vide Annex.10 on non-existence grounds and, therefore, the order of transfer as well as rejection of the representation deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the order Annex.10 contains incorrect facts regarding any complaint having been made against the petitioner, opportunity of hearing being afforded to the petitioner and thereafter, passing of the order by the respondents first making the petitioner APO and then transferring him and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to quashed and set aside.
Submissions have been made that the petitioner made application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) regarding the complaint having been made against the petitioner, which has been responded by indicating that the same was not available and, therefore, also the order impugned cannot be sustained.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
The grievance of the petitioner essentially pertains to first placing him APO and then transferring him. After the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn for the purpose of filing a representation, order Annex.10 has been passed by the respondents on the said representation, wherein, reference has been made to certain complaints, opportunity being granted to the petitioner, which has not been availed by the petitioner and based on the same, petitioner being made APO and, thereafter, transferring the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the
(3 of 3)
[CW-6919/2018]
petitioner has joined at the transferred place on 3.3.2018, based on which, the representation has been rejected holding that as the post held by the petitioner is transferable, he cannot seek posting at a particular place.
Submissions made by counsel for the petitioner regarding the facts indicated in the order impugned being incorrect does not appear to be correct merely based on the fact that material in this regard was not provided to the petitioner on application made under RTI Act.
A bare look at the order passed clearly indicates that the said application has been rejected for lack of specific particulars and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have refused to supply material for its non-availability, as sought to be submitted.
In view of the above discussion, the order impugned (Annex.10) passed by the respondents, which is well reasoned, does not call for any interference. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
Sumit-14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting the transfer representation and placing the petitioner on Awaiting Posting Orders (APO) warrants interference.
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding incorrect facts and lack of hearing materials under the RTI Act deserves judicial review.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation on the grounds of the post being transferable is sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjay Kumar Sharma
State Of Rajasthan
Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan
District Education Officer, Secondary, Sri Ganganagar
Shri Raghuveer Singh Galer
ARUN BHANSALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
