Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mamta Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 January, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13889/2021
Mamta Kumari D/o Rameshwar Prasad Kumawat, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Surajpura, Post Gordha, Tehsil Sawar, Dist.
Ajmer, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director Animal Husbandry
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Joint Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Nodal Officer, First Class Vetenory Hospital Jhahjpur,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pappa Ram Kumawat.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Gaur, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
03/01/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 27.9.2021, whereby, the transfer of the
petitioner made on 24.9.2021, has been cancelled.
The petitioner was initially transferred on 12.8.2021 from
Jhahajpur, Bhilwara to Sahada, Bhilwada. The petitioner remained
on medical leave from 18.8.2021 to 16.9.2021 and made an
application to join at the place from where she was transferred on
17.9.2021.
By order dated 24.9.2021 (Annex.2), the petitioner was
re-transferred from Sahada, Bhilwara to Jhahajpur, Bhilwara.
Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner joined at Jhahajpur on
(2 of 3) [CW-13889/2021]
25.9.2021 vide Annex.3, however, by order dated 27.9.2021
(Annex.4), the order dated 24.9.2021 to the extent of petitioner's
transfer came to be cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that
once the petitioner had joined at the transferred place i.e. at
Jhahajpur, Bhilwara on 25.9.2021 pursuant to the order dated
24.9.2021, the order dated 24.9.2021 could not have been
cancelled by the respondents and as such the order imugned
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Reliance has been placed on judgments in Gangaram Bishnoi
v. State & Ors.: WLR 1994 Raj 537 and Kalu Singh v. The State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: 2003 (1) WLC (Raj.) 674.
Learned counsel for the State made submissions that the
order dated 27.9.2021 has been passed in administrative exigency
and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any
interference.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The petitioner was initially transferred from Jhahajpur,
Bhilwara to Sahada, Bhilwara, which order was reversed by order
dated 24.9.2021 pursuant thereof the petitioner joined on
25.9.2021, however, after the petitioner had joined, on 27.9.2021
without indicating any specific reason the order dated 24.9.2021
to the extent of petitioner was cancelled.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the
respondents that order was passed in administrative exigency is
nowhere reflected from the order impugned. Further in the reply
also, the so-called administrative exigency has not been detailed.
(3 of 3) [CW-13889/2021]
This Court in the cases of Gangaram Bisshnoi (supra) and
Kalu Singh (supra) has categorically laid down that once the
transfer order stands executed and implemented, the same cannot
be cancelled and the respondents can duly pass a fresh order of
transfer if any administrative exigency exists.
In that view of the matter, the petition filed by the petitioner
is allowed. The order dated 27.9.2021 (Annex.4) to the extent of
petitioner is quashed and set aside.
No order as to costs.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
10-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
