Disposed

Prabodh Chander v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Aug 2022CW/11947/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged transfer from Institute of Advanced Studies to a distant Government Senior Secondary School, citing violation of vacancy norms and medical dependencies on mother. Court dismissed transfer policy claims but allowed representation on medical grounds.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioner to file representation to competent authority for consideration within two weeks regarding his medical condition and transfer.

Prabodh Chander Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11947/2022

¶3

Prabodh Chander S/o Late Sh. Hari Krishna, aged about 52 Years, R/o 6-Sa-26, Pawan Puri, South Extension, Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

The Principal, Government Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Bikaner, Near Kirti Stambh, Infront of Karni Singh Stadium, Bikaner - 334001.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid, Dy. G.C.

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

26/08/2022

¶14

The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Bikaner to Government Senior Secondary School Rasisar, Bikaner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two employees whose names are appearing at serial Nos. 13 and 124 have been transferred from Government Senior Secondary Schools to the present Institute. Learned counsel submitted that those two candidates have been transferred only from a vicinity of 4 Kilometers whereas the petitioner has been transferred to a

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-11947/2022]

¶18

place which is 40 kilometers away from the present place of posting. Learned counsel further submitted that the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education where the petitioner is working, requires certain specific qualification to be possessed as the job requires teaching and training to the teachers. He submitted that the petitioner being possessing those required qualifications deserves not to be transferred from the said Institute.

¶19

Learned counsel further submitted that because of Covid, he lost his wife & father and his mother is now totally dependent on him and therefore, he would not be in a position to take care of his mother, if he is transferred from the present place of posting. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the two persons have been transferred on their own request and when a transfer is made on request, an employee can be transferred only qua a vacant post.

¶20

Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order has been passed in administrative exigency and the persons who have been transferred to the Institute are also equally qualified. Further, learned counsel submitted that there is no law which provides that whenever a person is transferred on request, he can be transferred only against vacant post.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

It is clear on record that the petitioner is working in the Institute since 2015 and has now been transferred to the Government Senior Secondary School in district Bikaner itself. It is not the case of the petitioner that the persons who have been transferred to the Institute are not qualified as required in terms

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-11947/2022]

¶25

of law. Moreover, learned counsel has not pointed out as to how the impugned order is in contravention to any law or transfer policy. So far as the transfer of a person on request to only a vacant position is concerned, there is also no such mandatory provision of law. Further, the so-called persons who have been transferred to the present Institute and qua whom the arguments have been raised by him before this Court have not been impleaded parties to the present petition. Therefore, even otherwise this Court cannot pass any orders in their absence which would ultimately affect them. Moresoever, transfer is a natural consequence of service and the petitioner who has worked at the particular place of posting since 2015 cannot now even after 7 years claim that he cannot ever be transferred from that place of posting.

¶26

However, keeping into consideration the medical condition of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner may file a representation to the competent authority and the authority may consider and decide the same within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of the representation along with copy of the present order.

¶27

With the above observations, the present petition is disposed

¶28

of.

¶29

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶30

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶31

155-AnilKC/-

Prabodh Chander v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabodh Chander 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

Gajanan Dayam Vs State of Rajasthan

Suraj Prakash Buccha Vs Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahar

Ramzan Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Tola Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Kachhawaha Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwara Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan