Soniya Sharma D/O Gajanand Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1468 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 155/2021

Soniya Sharma D/o Gajanand Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Sunrise City, Niwaru, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                     Versus
1.     State     Of    Rajasthan,          Through          Principal   Secretary,
       Department Of Sanskrit Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
       Secretariat, Jaipur
2.     The Director, Sanskrit Education, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n.
       Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3.     The     Assistant       Director,     Sanskrit        Education,   Shiksha
       Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4.     Pinki Kumar Sharma, Presently Working As Teacher Gr. Iii
       Level I (Sanskrit) At Govt. Girls Upper Primary Sanskrit
       School, Rampura, Sevapura, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG with
                                 Mr. Saurabh Sharma

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

11/02/2022

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 28.01.2021 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.948/2021. The appellant-original petitioner was appointed as

Teacher Grade-III. She had challenged her order of transfer which

was within the same district. Her first challenge was made before

the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal when she failed to

(2 of 2) [SAW-155/2021]

get stay, she approached the learned Single Judge who dismissed

the petition with heavy cost.

Insofar as the dismissal of the petition is concerned, we are

not inclined to interfere. The petitioner holds transferable post.

She has been transferred within the same district which in any

case is not beyond the transfer jurisdiction. Her contention that as

per the order of appointment there is a ban on transfer within first

three years was rightly interpreted by the learned Single Judge as

to preventing the appointee from seeking transfer and not from

the administration causing her transfer if in the interest of

administration so required.

Having said that the order for imposition of cost need to be

deleted. In the result the direction contained in the impugned

judgment for payment of cost is set aside. Subject to this

modification judgment of the learned Single Judge is sustained.

Appeal is disposed of.

                                   (SUDESH BANSAL),J                                                  (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI/30









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)