Rajasthan High Court
Bachchu Singh Son Of Shri Kishan ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 November, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13136/2021
Bachchu Singh Son Of Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 49 Years,
Resident Of New Colony, Near S.d.m. Office, Roopbas, District
Bharatpur (Raj.) Presently Posted On The Post Of Assistant
Administrative Officer, Industrial Training Institute, Bayana, District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Labour
And Skill Development Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Kaushal Niyojan And Udhaymita Department,
Technical Education, Directorate (Training), Jodhpur.
3. Mukesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Mitthan Lal Sharma,
Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Old Hospital Road, Mori
Char Bag, Bharatpur. At Present Posted As Assistant
Administrate Officer, Government Industrial Training
Institute, Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Respondents/Non-Appellants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
30/11/2021
This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and
validity of the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Civil
Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned
Tribunal") in appeal No.4466/2021 filed by the petitioner as also the
transfer order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the official respondent.
The facts in brief are that vide order dated 23.09.2020, the
petitioner was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer and was
(2 of 3) [CW-13136/2021]
posted at Bayana, District Bharatpur. Vide order dated 30.07.2021,
he was transferred to Kota in place of respondent No.3 who was
transferred in petitioner's place at Bayana. Vide order dated
04.08.2021, transfer of the petitioner as also of the respondent No.3
were cancelled. This order was assailed by the respondent No.3 by
way of an appeal No.2727/2021 before the learned Tribunal wherein,
the learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 10.08.2021 stayed the
operation of the order dated 04.08.2021 qua the appellant.
Thereafter the respondent, vide order dated 29.09.2021, cancelled
the order dated 04.08.2021 and maintained the transfer order of the
petitioner to Kota. This order was subjected to challenge by the
petitioner by way of an appeal No.4466/2021 before the learned
Tribunal wherein, the learned Tribunal, vide its order dated
27.10.2021, directed its clubbing with earlier appeal No.2727/2021
and listing after a week. This order of the learned Tribunal dated
27.10.2021 as also the order dated 29.09.2021, are subject matter
of challenge in the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned
Tribunal erred in directing clubbing of the appeals instead of passing
an interim order in his favour. He submitted that despite direction of
the learned Tribunal, the appeals have not been tagged till date. He
contended that the respondent erred in passing the order impugned
dated 29.09.2021 cancelling the earlier order dated 04.08.2021,
which is subject matter of challenge in the appeal preferred by the
respondent No.3. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be
allowed and the order dated 27.10.2021 as also the order dated
29.09.2021 be quashed and set aside.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
(3 of 3) [CW-13136/2021]
Insofar as challenge to the order dated 29.09.2021 is
concerned, the petitioner has already assailed its validity before the
learned Tribunal by way of an appeal No.4466/2021 which is
subjudice. In view thereof, this Court refrains itself from examining
its legality and validity.
Contention of the learned counsel that while directing clubbing
of the appeals vide its order dated 27.10.2021, the learned Tribunal
erred in not granting interim relief to him, does not merit
acceptance. The learned Tribunal has assigned a well reasoned
finding for not granting interim order in favour of the appellant. It
has been observed therein that if the operation of the order dated
29.09.2021 is stayed, it would amount to double stay in the matter
resulting into two persons working at the same place. In view
thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal
did not err in not staying the order dated 29.09.2021 qua the
petitioner. Since, the subject matter of two appeals i.e. appeal
preferred by the respondent No.3 and the appeal preferred by the
appellant was identical i.e., their transfer in place of each-other, the
learned Tribunal has rightly directed their clubbing so as to avoid
conflicting judgments. In the above circumstances, this Court finds
no illegality in the order dated 27.10.2021 warranting interference of
this Court.
The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petition
is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/71
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
