Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Soni vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11740/2022
Ashok Soni S/o Shri Malchand Soni, Aged About 46 Years, Nera
Satyanarayan Temple, Pareek, Chouk, Bikaner At Present Posted
At Govt. Hospital, Sujangarh, Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical And Health Services And
Additional Director (Administration) Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Principal, Medical Officer, Government Hospital,
Sujangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
23/08/2022
The present petition has been filed against the order dated
28.07.2022 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from
Sujanmal Bagdiya Hospital Sujangarh, Churu to PBM Hospital,
Bikaner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly, the
impugned order has been passed in violation of Rule 8(iii) of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011;
Secondly, the CMO has specifically recommended for the
petitioner to be adjusted in the same office keeping into
consideration the work load in the present office and the foot fall
(2 of 3) [CW-11740/2022]
of the patients; thirdly, the petitioner is himself suffering from
spondylitis and therefore, deserves not to be transferred.
So far as the first ground raised by the learned counsel is
concerned, the same has already been adjudicated in the matter
of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rekha Kumari; D.B. Spl.
Appl. Writ No.284/2022 decided on 17.08.2022. In the said
judgment it has been specifically held as under:
"As a consequence of the above
development, we are of the view that the
Panchayati Raj Department has lawfully granted
ex-post facto sanction as per the requirement of
Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 to validate the
questioned transfer orders.
It was the fervent contention of the learned
counsel for the respondent employees that ex-
post facto consent does not relate to the transfer
orders at hand because the date mentioned in
the office note is 22.11.2021. This contention is
not tenable for the simple reason that this date
refers to the distribution of departments amongst
the Ministers, whereby independent charge of
Medical and Health Services coming under the
purview of Panchayati Raj Department was
assigned to Shri Parsadi Lal Meena, the Minister
for Medical and Health Services. As is evident
from the note-sheets annexed with the additional
affidavit, both the Departments have concurred
on the transfers, which are subject matter of
challenge in this litigation. The action so taken is
compliant of the view taken by the Division
Bench in the case of Mool Shankar (supra) and
hence, the requirement of consent of the
Panchayati Raj Department for effecting transfers
of the transferred employees of the Panchayati
Raj Department has been satisfied."
Therefore, the first ground raised by the counsel having
already been decided against him, it deserves no interference by
this Court.
(3 of 3) [CW-11740/2022]
Secondly, the recommendation made by the CMO vide order
dated 13.07.2022 specifically states that some other person has
already joined in place of the petitioner and therefore, the second
ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner also falls
flat. So far as the ground that the petitioner is suffering from
spondylitis is concerned, he may file a representation to that
effect before the Competent Authority and the same may be
considered in terms of law.
With the above observations, the present writ petition is
disposed of.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
219-AbhishekS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
