Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naresh Kumar Gupta vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4089/2021
Naresh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Hanumangarh Town , Distt. Hanumangarh At Present
Posted As School Lecturer (Chemistry) At Govt. Sr. Sec. School ,
Hanumangarh Town , Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary , Education
Department , Government Of Raj. Secretariat , Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. The Director , Secondary Education, Education
Department , Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Chief Education Officer (Secondary), Hanumangarh (Raj.)
4. The Principal Govt., Higher Secondary School ,
Hanumangarh Town , Distt, Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Makkad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary with
Mr. Vishal Jangid
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
15/03/2021
1. Feeling aggrieved of the transfer order dated 04.01.2021,
petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was
decided vide order dated 15.01.2021.
2. While deciding petitioner's petition, this Court directed the
respondents to consider petitioner's representation within a period
of four weeks by way of passing a speaking order.
(2 of 3) [CW-4089/2021]
3. In furtherance of the above order of this Court, the Director,
Secondary Education has passed the order dated 25.02.2021 and
rejected petitioner's request to cancel his transfer.
4. Mr. Vipin Makkad invited Court's attention towards
representation dated 18.01.2021 and submitted that the petitioner
had highlighted that his wife is posted in Hanumangarh, therefore,
his transfer to Bharatpur would cause mental agony and hardship
to him. He added that besides above reason, certain ancillary
grounds were also taken, but the respondent No.2 has not dealt
with the contentions and cursorily rejected petitioner's
representation by the order under challenge.
5. Mr. Choudhary, learned Government Counsel, appearing for
the respondents, supported the impugned order by contending
that a transfer is an incident of service and petitioner cannot claim
posting at a particular place, as a matter of right.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the order impugned vis-a-vis the representation filed by
the petitioner, this Court finds that the respondent No.2 has not
even applied his mind towards the first and foremost contention
raised by the petitioner.
7. The petitioner had clearly stated that his wife is posted in
Hanumangarh and thus, his transfer be cancelled, such ground
has not even been dilated upon or considered by the respondent
No.2 and his representation, however, turned down upon
considering the peripheral grounds.
8. The impugned order is thus, illegal for non-consideration of
material fact.
9. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds; the order impugned
dated 25.02.2021 is set aside.
(3 of 3) [CW-4089/2021]
10. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider petitioner's
representation dated 18.01.2021 afresh, while considering
petitioner's request of keeping him in Hanumangarh, as his wife is
already serving in Hanumangarh.
11. Fresh order be passed within a period of two weeks from
today.
12. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
13. 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.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
154-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
