Chinki Saini Wife Of Menendra ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6977 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                           BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13148/2021
Chinki Saini Wife Of Menendra Kumar, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Village Morda, Post-Samraya, Tehsil - Weir, District-
Bharatpur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Water Resource
         Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Additional    Chief       Engineer         (Head         Quarter)    Water
         Resources Department Rajasthan, Indira Gandhi Nahar
         Bhawan Mandal, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani
         Singh Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Mod, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kuamr Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

29/11/2021 This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order

dated 02.11.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services

Appellant Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, the learned Tribunal') as

also the order dated 30.09.2021 impugned therein.

The facts in brief, as revealed from the writ petition, are that

the petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was transferred vide order dated

30.09.2021 from Sub Division Kaman, Division Deeg to Sub

Division Jaitsar, Division Shri Ganganagar. It is submitted that she

has been transferred to a distance of about 625 Kms without any

administrative exigency and none has been transferred in her

place. It is averred that the Executive Engineer as also the

(2 of 4) [CW-13148/2021]

Assistant Engineer of the Sub Division Deeg have requested the

respondents for cancelling her transfer. The appeal preferred

against the transfer order has been disposed of by the learned

Tribunal vide order impugned dated 02.11.2021 whereby, the

appellant has been directed to submit a representation within two

weeks which shall be decided by the respondents within a period

of 30 days vide speaking order.

Learned counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has

committed a factual error in observing that the learned counsel for

the appellant requested for disposal of the appeal with liberty to

her to submit a representation with the respondents whereas, as a

matter of fact, he never made such request with the learned

Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned

Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to direct the respondents to

decide the representation and hence, the order impugned may be

quashed and set aside. Assailing the impugned transfer order

dated 30.09.2021, learned counsel submitted that she has been

transferred to a far distant place at about 625 Kms from her

present place of posting without any administrative exigency. He,

therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order

impugned be quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

The order dated 02.11.2021 reveals that the appeal has

been disposed of with a direction to the appellant to submit a

representation and its disposal by the respondents on the

categorical request of the learned counsel for the appellant. If the

petitioner is of the view that he did not make any such request

(3 of 4) [CW-13148/2021]

before the learned Tribunal, it is always open for him to seek

review of the order dated 02.11.2021 but, he cannot be permitted

to raise such objection before this Court in its writ jurisdiction. It

is trite law that if an order of a judicial/quasi judicial authority is

assailed before the higher forum/appellate authority contending

that the submissions of the party/respective parties recorded

therein are factually incorrect and were never so made, the only

remedy available for the aggrieved party is to approach the same

authority by way of a review petition and no appeal/writ petition

lies against the same on this count.

However, it is true that the learned Tribunal does not have

jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal directing the respondents to

decide the representation as held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in case of Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan and

Ors.: SBCWP No.12557/2021, vide judgment dated 21.09.2021

but, in view of the fact that such a course was adopted by the

learned Tribunal on the categorical request of the learned counsel

for the appellant, this Court deems it just and proper to extend

the appellant a liberty to approach the learned Tribunal for

recalling of the order impugned dated 02.11.2021 by way of a

review petition.

Insofar as challenge to the transfer order dated 30.09.2021

is concerned, since, arguments were not addressed before the

learned Tribunal assailing it on merit, this Court would not like to

enter into merits of the arguments for the first time in its writ

jurisdiction.

(4 of 4) [CW-13148/2021]

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to

the appellant to to seek recalling of the order dated 02.11.2021 by

way of a review petition.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J MADAN/77

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)