Dismissed

Dinesh Chandra Parashar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2023CW/486/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his intra-district transfer as contravening the principle from Dr. Pushpa Mehta regarding near-retirement employees. The court held intra-district transfers within the same tehsil cause no inconvenience, finding no error in the impugned order, and dismissed the writ petition and stay petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned transfer order upheld; stay petition dismissed.

Dinesh Chandra Parashar Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 486/2023

¶3

Dinesh Chandra Parashar S/o Shri Ratan Lal Parashar, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Near Higher Secondary School, Chhapara, Nandwai Raod, Begun Chittorgarh, Dist - Chittorgarh, (Raj.). Presently Working On The Post Of ACBEO-1 In The Office Of Chief Block Education Officer, Block Begun.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary School And Sanskrit Education, Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. 3. The District Education Officer (Secondary), Chittorgarh, Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vinod Jhanjharia
For Respondent(s)	: -

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

19/01/2023

¶13

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2022, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the office of Chief Block Education Officer, BlockBegun, District Chittaurgarh to Government Senior Secondary School, Gopalpura, Bhainsroadgarh, Begun, Chittaurgarh.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is going to superannuate on 31.05.2024 and since he has less than two years' tenure left before he retires, his transfer is contrary to law laid down by this Court in Dr. Pushpa Mehta Vs. RCSAT & Ors. , reported in RLW 2000(1) (Raj.) 233.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CW-486/2023]

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

It is to be noted that the petitioner has been transferred within the District Chittaurgarh, more particularly in Tehsil Begun itself and, therefore, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Pushpa Mehta (supra) does not come to his rescue because the entire reasoning given in the Division Bench judgment is that a person, who is on the verge of retirement and in the process of planning his future settlement post retirement, should not be disturbed.

¶19

Since, the petitioner has been transferred within District Chittaurgarh itself it cannot be accepted that he would be put to inconvenience.

¶20

This court does not find any error or infirmity in the order impugned, the petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶21

Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶22

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶23

4-Ramesh/-

Dinesh Chandra Parashar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chandra Parashar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Rudrakshi Sankhala Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Kumar Baberwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarita Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd Khalil Baig Vs State of Rajasthan

Varun Bhunwal Vs State of Rajasthan