Girdhari Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12262 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11606/2022

Dr. Girdhari Lal S/o Pema Ram, aged about 46 Years, Resident of Ward No.8, Sardulshahar, Sri Ganganagar, At Present Posted As Chief Medical & Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Joint Secretary (Group-2), Medical and Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

3. Director, Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

4. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. Dr. Manmohan Gupta, At Present Posted At CHC, Taranagar, Churu

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. D.L. Rawla Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC with Ms. Anamika Vishnoi Mr. Jagdish Kumar Vishnoi

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

13/10/2022

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 03.08.2022 (Annex.-2) whereby the petitioner has been

transferred/posted from CMHO Sri Ganganagar to the District

Hospital Sri Ganganagar.

It has been averred in the petition that firstly, the order of

transfer is in contravention to Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati

Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as

'Rules of 2011'). Secondly, the impugned order does not even

specify the designation of the petitioner at the place where he has

been transferred. Thirdly, the petitioner was a Senior Medical

Officer working as a CMHO and now he has been sought to be

(2 of 4) [CW-11606/2022]

transferred as a Medical Officer which evidently is a designation

junior to a Senior Medical Officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment

passed in the case of Hira Lal Tabiyar v. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10796/2022,

decided on 27.09.2022.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon

the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Banwari Lal Meena v.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.11404/2022, decided on 10.10.2022. Learned counsel

submitted that in Dr. Banwari Lal Meena's case (supra), all the

grounds as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition

have already been dealt with and after consideration of the same,

the writ petition of the petitioner therein has been dismissed. It

has been submitted that therefore, the present matter is squarely

covered by Dr. Banwari Lal Meena's case (supra).

Learned Senior counsel appearing for private respondent

No.5 submitted that the present writ petition cannot be

entertained even on the ground that the petitioner has already

joined in pursuance to the order dated 03.08.2022 at his new

place of posting and therefore, in light of the Division Bench

judgment in Pankaj Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.119/2021 (decided on

01.04.2021), the present writ petition cannot be entertained.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

So far as the ground of the order dated 03.08.2022 being in

contravention to Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 is concerned, the

same has been dealt with in Dr. Banwari Lal Meena's case

(3 of 4) [CW-11606/2022]

(supra) and it has been held that so far as the impugned order is

concerned, the same is not a transfer order. In Dr. Banwari Lal

Meena's case (supra), it has been held that in terms of the

circular dated 15.03.2022, the persons who could be posted as

CMHO had to possess certain qualifications and those who did not

possess the said qualifications were not entitled to continue to

remain posted as CMHO and therefore, they have been accorded

posting at different places. Thus, the provisions of Rule 8 of the

Rules of 2011 which pertains to transfer of the employees would

have no application.

Admittedly, the present petitioner is also governed by the

circular dated 15.03.2022 and admittedly, the petitioner is not

having the grade pay of 7600 which is an essential qualification for

continuing as a CMHO in terms of the circular dated 15.03.2022.

The ratio as laid down in Dr. Banwari Lal Meena's case (supra)

would therefore, definitely apply and in the observation of this

Court, the order dated 03.08.2022 cannot be concluded to be a

transfer order.

The next submission raised by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner has been posted as a Medical Officer

whereas he is a Senior Medical Officer, has also been taken care

by the office order dated 12.10.2022 which has been placed on

record today by learned counsel for the respondents. Vide the said

order, the earlier order dated 07.09.2022 has been sought to be

amended and it has been declared that the petitioner would hold

his post as a Junior Specialist. The post of the Junior Specialist is

admittedly the post equivalent to the Senior Medical Officer and

therefore, after the said amended order, the ground raised by the

petitioner of him being appointed on a junior level post also does

(4 of 4) [CW-11606/2022]

not survive. So far as Hira Lal Tabiyar's case (supra) is

concerned, this Court would now not be required to go into the

ratio laid down in the said case as by virtue of the order dated

12.10.2022, the petitioner has been appointed as the Junior

Specialist and therefore, the ground of him being posted as a

junior itself does not survive.

So far as the interference in the present writ petition on the

ground of his already having joined at his new place of posting is

concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was

only under duress and under compelling circumstances that he

was compelled to join. A perusal of the joining letter dated

21.09.2022 submitted by the petitioner and placed on record by

learned counsel for the respondents during the course of

arguments, clarifies that the said letter does not specify any

objection/protest of the petitioner before joining at his new place

of posting. Definitely, vide communication dated 28.09.2022, the

petitioner did submit that he is joining on the new post under

protest but the same would be of no consequence as the

petitioner had already joined on 21.09.2022 without any protest

and secondly, as held in Pankaj Chouhan's case (supra), after

joining at the new place of posting, no cause survives for the

present petition.

In view of the above observations, the present writ petition

being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

All the pending applications also stand dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 99-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)