Amrit Lal Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11757 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 810/2022

Amrit Lal Purohit S/o Shri Manohar Lal Purohit, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Purohit, R/o Village Berda, Post Chanderiya, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh. Presently Posted As Land Record Inspector, Circle, Ghatiyawali, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. District Collector, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

3. Tehsildar, Chittorgarh.

4. Shri Ramesh Chandra Tailor, Revenue Inspector, Circle, Kannoj, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)          :     --

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

21/09/2022

Heard.

In this appeal, the order passed by learned Single Judge has

been assailed on the ground that the appellant is at the verge of

retirement and will be retiring in the month of May, 2023 and

therefore, he ought not to be disturbed. The other ground is that

the wife of the appellant is suffering from paralysis and that aspect

has also not been taken into consideration.

Reliance placed on the judgment passed by this Court in the

case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services

(2 of 2) [SAW-810/2022]

Appellate Tribunal & Ors. {D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.11538/1999, decided on 16.12.1999} is misplaced as the

Supreme Court in various decisions has categorically reiterated the

well settled principles and scope of interference in the matter of

transfers and it has been laid down that unless the order of transfer

is vitiated on account of absence of jurisdiction or is mala fide or is

made in violation of any operative guidelines or rules, the Courts

should not ordinarily interfere with it. In the present case, no such

grounds are made out.

The hardships, which have been stated by the appellant,

require attention of the concerned authorities. Learned Single

Judge has already observed that the petitioner should approach the

respondent authorities as far as his personal difficulties are

concerned.

In view of the above observations and considering the fact

that the transfer of the appellant is within the same district, we find

no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

However, the appellant shall be at liberty to file a fresh

representation before the appropriate authorities and the same to

be considered sympathetically in view of the illness of his wife.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The stay petition also

stand dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ

22-AnilKC-Abhishek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)