Lokesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1264 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4263/2020

Lokesh Kumar S/o Shri Hazari Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Rampuriya, Nareli, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

27/01/2022

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by

judgment in Subhash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.10353/2021, decided on 3.9.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

dispute the said aspect.

In the case of Subhash Chandra (supra), a Coordinate Bench

of this Court inter alia laid down as under:-

"(33) This Court has consistently held that inter-district transfers of Constables and Head-Constables and inter-range transfers of ASI's are contrary to Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989. It will not be out of place to

(2 of 2) [CW-4263/2020]

reproduce adjudication made by this Court in the case of Smt. Premlata (supra), which reads thus:-

"A perusal of the said Rules shows that the persons mentioned in column 5 of Sections I, II and IV of the Schedule-I holding substantive rank shall be eligible in the case of Constables on District/Unit, Battalion basis, which means that the concerned Constable shall be promoted as and when his/her turn comes in the district to which he/she has been transferred.

Mr. Jai Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Bikaner is present in the Court and confirms the said fact. Thus, this Court fails to understand as to how the petitioner does not stand to suffer, in case she is transferred from Bikaner to Jhunjhunu because, even though, the seniority is maintained from the date of the appointment, she will be promoted only in case the person senior to her in Jhunjhunu has been promoted though his initial appointment is after the date of the initial appointment of the present petitioner. Thus, the transfer order which places the petitioner in disadvantage vis- a-vis for the purpose of promotion cannot be sustained."

In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the issue raised

in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment in the

case of Subhash Chandra (supra), the writ petition filed by the

petitioner is allowed.

The order dated 18.3.2020 (Annex.4), qua the petitioner, is

quashed and set aside.

No order as to costs.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 96-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)