Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of Rajasthan on 8 March, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3507/2022
Manish Kumar Agarwal S/o Ambaji Agarwal, aged about 35
Years, R/o Ambaji Road, Abu Road, District Sirohi, Pin No.
307026.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Director, Directorate
Treasury and Accounts, Secretariat, Vit Bhawan, Janpath,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Joint Administrative Secretary, Finance (Revenue)
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Block Education Officer, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan,
Abu Road, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
08/03/2022
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner
aggrieved against order dated 21.02.2022 (Annex.6) passed by
the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, whereby appeal
filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order of transfer
dated 18.01.2022, has been disposed of permitting the petitioner
to approach the respondents therein by way of representation and
the respondents have been directed to decide the same by way of
a speaking order.
(2 of 4) [CW-3507/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to judgment in
Manoj Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.12557/2021 decided on 21.09.2021 submitted that the
Tribunal cannot direct disposal of the representation and that the
Tribunal has to decide the appeal on merits.
Further submissions have been made that the order of
transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the Rajasthan Scheduled
Area Subordinate Ministerial and Class IV Services (Recruitment
and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 ("Rules of 2014"),
wherein a person working in TSP area cannot be transferred to
Non-TSP area.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
A bare perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal indicates
as under:
"geus vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku~ vf/koDrk dks vihy dh
xzkárk ,oa LFkxu izkFkZuk&i= ij lquk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k
reke vfHkys[k dk vuq'khyu dj euu fd;kA
cgl ds nkSjku vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk vihy esa
of.kZr vk/kkjksa ,oa vf/kdkjksa dks R;kxrs gq;s ;g vuqjks/k fd;k x;k
fd vihykFkhZ }kjk izR;FkhZ foHkkx ds le{k viuk vH;kosnu izLrqr
djus ij izR;FkhZ foHkkx }kjk fu;ekuqlkj vH;kosnu dk fuLrkj.k
djus ds vkns'k iznku djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA izR;sd dkfeZd
dks ;g vf/kdkj izkIr gS fd og lsok laca/kh vHkko vfHk;ksx
fuokj.k gsrq vius fu;ksDrk dks vH;kosnu izLrqr djasA
vr% izLrqr vihy ds rF;ksa ds laca/k esa xq.kkoxq.k ij fopkj
ugha djrs gq,] vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds vuqjks/k dks
n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, U;k;fgr esa ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd
vihykFkhZ 2 lIrkg dh vof/k esa foHkkx ds le{k izkf/kdkjh dks
viuh vihy esa of.kZr rF;ksa ij ,d vH;kosnu izLrqr djsA l{ke
izkf/kdkjh dks ;g funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd og iwoksZDr vk'k; dk
(3 of 4) [CW-3507/2022]
vH;kosnu izkIr gksus ij mls jkT; ljdkj o foHkkx ds
fn'kk&funsZa'[email protected] [email protected];eksa ds ifjizs{; esa vkxkeh 2 lIrkg
dh vof/k esa xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij vk[;kRed vkns'k
(speaking order) izlkfjr dj fuLrkfjr djs vkSj ,sls fuLrkj.k
dh lE;d~ lwpuk vihykFkhZ dks nsA
vr% mDr vihy] e; LFkxu izkFkZuk i=] xzk árk ds izØe
ij gh mi;qZDr funsZ'k ds lkFk vfUre :i ls fuLrkfjr dh tkrh
gSA"
Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner had made
specifically submissions before the Tribunal that the petitioner
leaving all his rights and grounds in appeal may be permitted to
file a representation and accepting the said submission, the appeal
has been disposed of.
Once the petitioner himself made a submission before the
Tribunal, which was accepted, it cannot be said that the said
prayer made by the petitioner should not have or could not have
been accepted by the Tribunal. The judgment in the case of Manoj
Kumar Jain (supra), in peculiar circumstances of the present case,
has no application.
So far as the ground sought to be raised by the petitioner
based on the Rules of 2014 is concerned, the said submission was
made before the Tribunal and thereafter the petitioner chose
disposal of the appeal with liberty to approach the respondents by
way of representation, questioning the validity of the order passed
on the said ground before this court by way of present writ
petition independent of the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be
contenanced. Once the petitioner has taken a particular order
from the Tribunal, the petitioner has to follow the same and
cannot seek adjudication independent of the directions issued by
the Tribunal.
(4 of 4) [CW-3507/2022]
Consequently, the petition has no substance, the same is
therefore, dismissed. In case, the petitioner has not made
representation in terms of the directions given by the Tribunal, he
can still do so within a period of one week from today.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
65-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
