Savita Bairwa vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18038 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18166/2019

Satyanarayan Bairwa S/o Shri Munshilalji, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Bairwa, Resident Of Near Darbar School Road, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. The Chief Education Officer, Sirohi.

4. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Education Department, Sirohi.

5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Education Department, Sirohi.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18083/2019 Savita Bairwa W/o Satyanarayan Bairwa, Aged About 39 Years, Near Darbar School Road, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner

3. The Chief Education Officer, Sirohi

4. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Education Department, Sirohi

5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Education Department, Sirohi

6. The Grievance Redressal Committee, Department Of District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Sirohi.

                                                                ----Respondents



                                         (2 of 3)                [CW-18166/2019]



For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Rajesh Shah
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Hemant Choudhary



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

01/12/2021

These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners being

aggrieved with the order dated 22.11.2019 (Annex-25) in both the

petitions, whereby their request to transfer them in urban area

has been refused by the respondents.

This Court vide order dated 19.12.2019 has stayed the effect

and operation of the order dated 22.11.2019 (Annex.25) and

permitted the petitioners to continue to work at the place where

they were working before passing of the order dated 19.09.2018.

It is noticed that these writ petitions are pending since 2019

and pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on

19.12.2019, the petitioners are working at the place where they

were working before passing of the order dated 19.09.2018.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in

view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking

into consideration the fact that the petitioners are working at the

place from around two years, I deem it appropriate to dispose of

these writ petitions by granting liberty to the respondents to pass

a fresh order regarding posting of the petitioners looking to the

administrative exigency in accordance with the prevalent transfer

policy/guidelines issued by the State Government.

The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order regarding

posting of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from

today.

(3 of 3) [CW-18166/2019]

Till passing of the fresh order regarding posting of the

petitioners by the respondents, the petitioners are permitted to

continue to work at the place where they are working.

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of.

Stay petitions are also disposed of.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

1-2 mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)