HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1357/2022
Smt. Vimla Chahar W/o Shri Jale Singh, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o 17, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. Presently Posted As Anm In
The Office Of Block Chief Medical Officer, Surajgarh, District
Jhunjhunu.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical Health And Family
Welfare Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jhunjhunu.
4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 10/01/2023
1. The appeal of the petitioner-appellant against her order of transfer dated 03.09.2022 was dismissed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
2. Aggrieved, petitioner-appellant preferred a writ petition which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 on the ground that petitioner-appellant was not the only person who was transferred. About 756 persons were transferred including the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner- appellant has no right to stick to a particular place and to oppose (Downloaded on 14/01/2023 at 12:33:12 AM) (2 of 2) [SAW-1357/2022] transfer when she had been working on the same place since 2014.
3 In view of the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, as the petitioner-appellant has no vested right to remain posted at one particular place rather as she is holding a transferable post, she is liable to be transferred on periodical basis. It is not the case of the petitioner-appellant that the transfer order has been passed by some incompetent authority.
4. The submission that at least about 30 similarly situate persons have been granted interim protection by this Court and the writ petitions have been entertained, is no ground to stay the transfer of the petitioner-appellant. Interim orders have no binding precedent and when one particular petition has been decided on merits, the judgment and order passed therein would be followed as a precedent in deciding the remaining 30 cases where stay orders if any, have been passed.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal lacks merit and stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner- appellant to represent to the competent authority if she has any personal difficulty in working at the transferred place. It is expected that the representation if any filed shall be decided most expeditiously.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
ANIL KUMAR GOYAL/RAJAT/7
(Downloaded on 14/01/2023 at 12:33:12 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)