Disposed

Kamlesh Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 May 2024CW/3311/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a transfer order noting a discrepancy in the range and non-existent office. Court held that even if the posting was wrongly mentioned due to range realignment, no interference with the transfer order is warranted as the employee has joined the new post. Disposal directed HoFF to pass clarification.

What did the court decide?

Transfer order allowed; no interference warranted with the transfer despite discrepancy in posting range; HoFF directed to pass appropriate order clarifying the matter.

Kamlesh Kumar Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3311/2024

Kamlesh Kumar Rawat

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. DS Jasol assisted by Mr. Virendra
	Singh
	Mr. Ritu RajRathore

¶9

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

07/05/2024

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the order impugned dated 20.02.2024, the respondents did not take into account the fact that ranges have been realigned and the petitioner has been shown to have transferred from an office, which does not exist.

¶13

Mr. DS Jasol, learned counsel for the State submitted that firstly there is no confusion or incongruity in the impugned order and the posting provided by the respondents to the petitioner is correct.

¶14

He nevertheless submitted that respondent No.3 has already joined at his new place of posting and, therefore, no interference is warranted.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

This Court is of the view that even if the place of posting of respondent No.3 in the impugned order has wrongly been

¶17

(2 of 2) [CW-3311/2024]

¶18

mentioned, because of such discrepancy in the range, the transfer order passed by respondent-authority cannot be interfered with.

¶19

In case, any clarification is required to be made, the Principle Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force-HoFF), Rajasthan, Jaipur shall pass appropriate order.

¶20

Writ petition so also stay application stand disposed of.

¶21

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶22

5-raksha/-

Kamlesh Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar Rawat 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

Heera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Devendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Lal Purohit Vs the State of Rajasthan

Tara Ram Chouhan Vs Shri Shyam Singh Rajpurohit

Kamal Kishore Hada Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gopal Lal Banjara Vs the Registrar