Disposed

Mohammad Rafik v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2024CW/3957/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A government employee kept Awaiting Posting Order under Rule 25-A with his headquarters shifted from Jaisalmer to distant Bharatpur challenged the order. The court held Rule 25-A grants no power to keep employees unposted or shift headquarters, found the order arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16, quashed it, and restored Jaisalmer as his posting.

What did the court decide?

Impugned APO order dated 22.02.2024 quashed; petitioner permitted to work at District Jaisalmer; State free to pass fresh posting order if needed.

Mohammad Rafik Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11864]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3957/2024

¶4

Mohammad Rafik S/o Ramzan Ali, Aged About 55 Years, 623, Main Jethawai Road, Gandhi Colony, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of Cooperative, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

1. Joint Secretary, Department Of Cooperative, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

1. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mohammad Rafik, petitioner present inperson
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. MrigrajSingh Rathore

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

12/03/2024

¶15

The basic grievance which has been raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is, that he has been kept Awaiting Posting Order (APO) in exercise of Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1951’) without assigning any reason or mentioning period in the order impugned.

¶16

The petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 is contrary to Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1951.

¶17

He further argued that while placing him under Awaiting Posting Order, the respondents have changed his headquarter from Jaisalmer to extreme corner in the east of the State, i.e. District Bharatpur (which is about 800 kms away).

[CW-3957/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:11864]

(2 of 3)

Mr. Mrigraj Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent-State was not in a position to justify the impugned order dated 22.02.2024, so far as changing petitioner’s headquarter to the farthest place in the State, namely, District Bharatpur is concerned.

¶22

This Court is unable to comprehend that if the State did not have any proper place of posting ready to deploy the petitioner, where was an occasion of changing his headquarter to a far away place (District Bharatpur). Such an action on the part of the State of changing petitioner’s headquarter to District Bharatpur is clearly arbitrary and violative of petitioner’s Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1951 is neither an enabling provision nor does it clothe the appointing authority/State with the power to keep the employees without any posting or change his/her/their headquarters.

¶24

In the opinion of this Court, Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1951 cannot be invoked impending the transfer of an employee or to accommodate/transfer other employee in place of already working employee. It not only causes inconvenience to the employee, but also poses unwarranted financial burden on the State.

¶25

In the contingencies enumerated in Rule 25-A or under exceptional circumstances, a Government servant can be asked to await posting.

¶26

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no reason has been inscribed and the order has been passed in a mechanical manner.

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:11864]

[CW-3957/2024]

The impugned order dated 22.02.2024, qua the petitioner is hereby quashed.

¶31

Needless to observe that the State shall be free to pass fresh posting order qua the petitioner, if administrative exigency so warrants.

¶32

The petitioner shall be permitted to discharge his duties at

¶33

District Jaislamer, the previous place of posting.

¶34

The present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶36

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶37

16-akansha/-

Mohammad Rafik v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Rafik 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

Statutes considered

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

Sajjan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan