Disposed

Sajjan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2024CW/3581/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition concerning the transfer of a revenue employee. The court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction but directed the petitioner to file a representation for consideration by the competent authority within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a representation within two weeks for consideration by the competent authority preferably within eight weeks; stay application disposed of.

Sajjan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11867]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3581/2024

¶4

Sajjan Singh S/o Shri Subhkaran Charan, Aged About 40 Years, Village / Post Narpura, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.

¶9

The District Collector (Land Record), Jalore. 4. Tehsildar (Land Record), Tehsil Jaswantpura, District Jalore.

¶10

Hakkim Khan, Presently Working As Inspector Land Record In The Revenue Circle, Tehsil Jaswantpura, District Jalore.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh, petitioner present in person

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

12/03/2024

¶16

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by respondent No.3, whereby he has been transferred from Jaswantpura to Ahore.

¶17

It is to be noted that the distance between petitioner’s new place of posting (District Ahore) and petitioner's present place of posting is about 70 kms.

¶18

(2 of 2) [CW-3581/2024]

¶19

[2024:RJ-JD:11867]

¶20

In the opinion of this Court, the distance is not so much as to cause familial or financial inconvenience to the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner is not a low paid employee.

¶21

That apart, transfer is an incident of service and it is the subjective satisfaction of the employer to make transfers/posting for administrative efficiency and to meet with the exigencies.

¶22

This Court is therefore, not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Be that as it may.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation within a period of two weeks along with certified copy of the order instant.

¶25

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the competent authority of respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks.

¶26

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.

¶27

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶29

6-akansha/-

Sajjan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan Singh v. the 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

Birma Ram Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Kailash Chand Bajiya Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jyoti Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandra Shekhar Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Gopal Chand Jat Vs the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Mohammad Rafik Vs State of Rajasthan