Dr. Ratna Ram Bidiyasar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9175 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6333/2021

Dr. Ratna Ram Bidiyasar S/o Shri Narayan Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Jakhan, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Presently Holding The Post Of Block Chief Medical Officer, Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.) Mobile No. 7852038136.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Deputy Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical And Health (Gr.-2), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The Panchayat Samiti Jayal, Through Its Block Development Officer, District Nagaur.

5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.

6. Block Chief Medical Officer, Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).

7. Dr. Ganesh Bhagwan Asopa, Medical Officer (Ortho), Was Posted At Sub District Hospital, Didwana, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Khileree For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. S. Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by Mr. Shreyansh Mehta

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

09/04/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

transfer order dated 31.03.2021 is contrary to judgment of this

(2 of 3) [CW-6333/2021]

Court dated 15.01.2020, rendered in the case of Kiran Kumari Vs.

State of Rajsthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner has been transferred on the basis of purported

consent/request made by him, whereas the petitioner has not

made such request.

3. Mr. K. S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the State, at the outset submits that as the

petitioner has been transferred to a place, which is hardly 500

meter away from the present place of posting, no interference is

warranted in the present case, even if the petitioner has raised a

jurisdictional issue in light of Kiran Kumari's case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon an order

dated 16.03.2021 passed by this Court in Jeetu Kumari Vs.

Additional Director (Administration) & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition

No.4008/2021, which was dismissed while observing that as the

place of posting of the petitioner is hardly 7 km away, no

interference is called for.

5. Having regard to the fact that the place where the petitioner

has been transferred is hardly 500 meter away from his present

place of posting, in the opinion of this Court no prejudice has been

caused to the petitioner, for which his technical or legal arguments

need to be entertained.

6. In any case, transfer is an incidence of service. It is settled

position that until and unless an employee has established

malafides or substantial injustice, the High Court would be loathe

in interfering.

(3 of 3) [CW-6333/2021]

7. So far as petitioner's argument that he had not given any

consent is concerned, the same can be addressed to, by the

respondents.

8. Appropriate TA/DA shall be paid to the petitioner in

accordance with law.

9. The writ petition is dismissed.

10. Stay application too stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 173-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)