Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 June, 2024
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2024:RJ-JD:25276]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7655/2024
Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Gopichand, Aged About 52 Years, Agrasen
Nagar, Behind Rathore Agency, Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Joint Secretary, Finance (Tax Department), Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Shakuntla Shekhawat W/o Sh. Dhirendra Singh Rathore,
Aged About 47 Years, 21-22, Shanti Nagar, Disticrt Churu.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4308/2024
Shakuntla Shekhawat W/o Sh. Dhirendra Singh Rathore, Aged
About 47 Years, Resident Of 21-22, Shanti Nagar, District Churu
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Joint Secretary, Finance (Tax Department), Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Murlidhar Sharma, Ex-Chairman, Nagar Parishad, Churu,
Bhartiya Janta Party, Nai Sadak Churu, Rajasthan.
4. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Gopiram, Resident Of Agrasen Nagar,
Behind Rathore Agency, Churu (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rishabh Purohit for Mr.Ram Kumar
in SBCWP No.7655/2024
Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for Ms. Shakuntla
Shekhawat in SBCWP No.4308/2024
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Hemant Dutt.
(Downloaded on 04/06/2024 at 08:39:20 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:25276] (2 of 7) [CW-7655/2024]
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
04/06/2024
1. The present two writ petitions arising out of a common
dispute, were heard together and are being decided by this
common order.
2. The facts of the case are that both Shakuntla Shekhawat
(petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4308/2024) and Ram
Kumar (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7655/2024) were
transferred vide order dated 22.02.2024. Vide the said order,
Shakuntla Shekhawat (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner')
was sought to be transferred from Churu to Hanumangarh and
Ram Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') was
sought to be transferred from Jaipur to Churu in place of
Shakuntla Shekhawat.
3. Shakuntla Shekhawat challenged the order dated
22.02.2024, at the first instance, by way of a writ petition (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.3603/2024) before this Court. The said writ
petition was however, withdrawn on 06.03.2024. Prior to the said
withdrawal, an appeal, assailing the order dated 22.02.2024 was
preferred by her on 01.03.2024 before the Rajasthan Civil
Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as
'learned Tribunal'). The said appeal was dismissed by the learned
Tribunal vide order 06.03.2024, aggrieved of which, the present
writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4308/2024) was preferred.
4. A submission has been made in the writ petition that the
transfer of the petitioner Shakuntla Shekhawat has been made
[2024:RJ-JD:25276] (3 of 7) [CW-7655/2024]
just to accommodate respondent No.4 Ram Kumar and that too,
solely on the basis of one letter dated 11.01.2024 written by
respondent No.3, Ex-Chairman, Municipal Council, Churu. It has
therefore been averred that her transfer order was politically
motivated.
5. Vide interim order dated 15.03.2024, considering the letter
dated 11.01.2024, effect and operation of the order dated
22.02.2024 was stayed and even the relieving order (if any) qua
petitioner Shakuntla Shekhawat was stayed. Because of the
interim order having been passed in favour of Shakuntla
Shekhawat, respondent Ram Kumar was kept APO vide order
dated 29.04.2024, aggrieved of which, he preferred the present
writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7655/2024) before this
Court.
An application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of
India has been preferred by Ram Kumar in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4308/2024 for vacation of the interim order dated 15.03.2024.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Ram Kumar submitted that
the alleged letter dated 11.01.2024, considering which, this Court
proceeded on to pass an interim order in favour of Shakuntla
Shekhawat, is a total concocted document, got prepared at behest
of Shakuntla Shekhawat herself. In support of the said
submission, a newspaper cutting of 17.03.2024 has been placed
on record pertaining to some function organised in remembrance
of father-in-law of Shakuntla Shekhawat wherein respondent No.3,
Ex-Chairman, Municipal Council, Churu was the chief guest. Even
Shakuntla Shekhawat was a participant in the said programme. It
[2024:RJ-JD:25276] (4 of 7) [CW-7655/2024]
has therefore been submitted that there is rather a close nexus
between petitioner Shakuntla Shekhawat and respondent No.3
Murlidhar Sharma. Meaning thereby, the letter dated 11.01.2024
was cunningly crafted by Shakuntla Shekhawat so as to accrue
undue advantage out of it.
7. Counsel further submitted that respondent Ram Kumar had
been kept APO in total contravention to the basic provisions of law
and just because of the interim order been passed in favour of
petitioner Shakuntla Shekhawat whereas the petitioner Shakuntla
Shekhawat had since the year 2006 (year of her appointment),
remained posted at Churu only. During her complete tenure of
service, she had never been transferred out of Churu, her home
town and it is for the first time, vide order dated 22.02.2024, she
was transferred out of Churu whereas respondent Ram Kumar
had, since the year 2006 (year of his appointment), never
remained posted at Churu, which is his home town. During his
service tenure, initially, he remained posted at Bikaner, then at
Sriganganagar and then at Jaipur. It is for the first time that he
had been transferred to Churu but just within a span of two
months, he has been kept APO without any valid reason or logic.
Learned counsel therefore submitted that the impugned order
dated 29.04.2024 deserves to be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner Shakuntla
Shekhawat submitted that firstly, there is no nexus between the
petitioner and respondent No.3, as alleged by the respondent. On
the contrary, there is a civil litigation pending between the families
of the two. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is
[2024:RJ-JD:25276] (5 of 7) [CW-7655/2024]
suffering from serious ailments qua which material has been
placed on record and keeping into consideration her ill health, the
order dated 22.02.2024 qua her deserves to be set aside. Learned
counsel further submitted that even after passing of the interim
order dated 15.03.2024, the petitioner was not permitted to join
and to perform her duties, by the departmental authorities and
respondent Ram Kumar who had joined by then, did not even
permit her to sign in the attendance register and hence, she was
forced to furnish her attendance via email to the authorities. The
said fact is enough to prove that the petitioner's transfer was
made just to accommodate the blue eyed officer of the
department i.e. the respondent Ram Kumar.
9. Heard learned counsels and perused the material.
10. It is clear on record that the interim order dated 15.03.2024
was passed keeping into consideration the letter dated 11.01.2024
(Annexure-13) alleged to be written by Ex-Chairman of Municipal
Council, Churu to the Chief Minister, recommending the transfer of
petitioner Shakuntla Shekhawat. This Court is of the clear opinion
that the letter dated 11.01.2024 cannot be termed to be a proof
of any pleading/fact. A mere averment cannot be said to be a
conclusive proof of a fact pleaded. Further, how the said alleged
letter came into the petitioner's possession is also not explained.
In the circumstances, if the said letter dated 11.01.2024 is to be
relied upon, there is no reason whatsoever as to why the
newspaper cutting of 17.03.2024 as placed on record by
respondent Ram Kumar be not relied upon. The news report
clearly reflects may be not a nexus, but definitely an acquaintance
[2024:RJ-JD:25276] (6 of 7) [CW-7655/2024]
of petitioner Shakuntla Shekhawat and respondent No.3 Murlidhar
Sharma. Even on comparative terms, a news report of an event
would have a higher proposition of reliability as compared to a
document merely averred of and not supported by any evidence.
Further, the order dated 22.02.2024 is not an order
pertaining to the petitioner alone. Vide the said order, 28 people
have been transferred and hence, no malafides, as alleged by the
petitioner, can be concluded.
11. Further, as is clear on record, petitioner Shakuntla
Shekhawat had remained posted at Churu during her complete
tenure of service and she has never been transferred out of Churu
whereas respondent Ram Kumar has for the first time been
transferred to Churu. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar; AIR 1991 SC 532, a
Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested
right to remain posted at one specific place, he is liable to be
transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by
the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights.
12. Further, the order dated 29.04.2024 whereby the respondent
has been kept APO, also cannot be affirmed, the same being
contrary to the settled provision of law. Even if it is observed that
the said order was passed because of the interim order having
been passed in favour of petitioner Shakuntla Shekhawat, the
same cannot be said to be justified. However, as this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the transfer order of the petitioner, it is
not required to delve into the issue further.
[2024:RJ-JD:25276] (7 of 7) [CW-7655/2024]
13. So far as the other ground raised by counsel for the
petitioner pertaining to her medical condition is concerned, this
Court cannot go into the question of relative hardship. As held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. S.S. Kaurav; (1995) 3 SCC 270, it would be for the
administration to consider the facts of a given case and mitigate
the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient
administration. If there is any such hardship, it would be open to
the person aggrieved to make a representation to the Government
and it is for the Government to consider and take appropriate
decision in that behalf.
14. In view of the above observations and analysis, the orders
dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure-6) and 06.03.2024 (Annexure-15)
qua petitioner Shakuntla Shekhawat do not deserve any
interference and writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4308/2024) filed by her is hereby, dismissed.
Writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.7655/2024) filed by
Ram Kumar is hereby, allowed. The order dated 29.04.2024
passed qua Ram Kumar is hereby quashed and set aside. He
would be permitted to rejoin at his transferred place of posting at
Churu with immediate effect.
15. The stay petitions, application under Article 226(3) of the
Constitution of India and the pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
SPhophaliya/Vij/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
