Manmohan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13158)
2025 Latest Caselaw 8379 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manmohan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13158) on 6 March, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:13158]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1472/2025

Dalip Singh Nirban S/o Shri Nahar Singh Nirban, Aged About 56
Years, Resident Of Plot No. 47, Backside Dak Bunglow, Sita Ram
Bag Road, Deedwana, District Deedwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Cum
         Secretary To The Government, Department Of Local Self,
         Jaipur.
2.       The Director Cum Special Secretary, Directorate Local
         Self   Department,         Government            Of       Rajasthan,    Jaipur
         (Rajasthan).
3.       The Municipal Council Banswara, District Deedwana-
         Kuchaman Through Its Commissioner.
4.       Shri    Manish      Bijarniya,        Assistant           Engineer     (Swm),
         Municipal Council, Nagaur.
                                                                     ----Respondents

                                Connected With
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1475/2025
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1476/2025
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1479/2025


For Petitioner(s)           :     Ms. Divya Bapna
For Respondent(s)           :



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

06/03/2025

1. Petitioners herein are before this Court seeking quashing of

their respective orders dated 15.01.2025, vide which, their

services were put under Awaiting Posting Orders.

[2025:RJ-JD:13158] (2 of 3) [CW-1472/2025]

2. At the very threshold, reference may be had to a judgment

rendered by me in the case titled as Ganraj Bishnoi Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15366/2024,

decided on 17.02.2025, wherein following guidelines were framed

qua placing the services of a government employee under

'Awaiting Posting Orders' category:-

"22. While concluding, in order to avoid needless litigation in future, it is deemed appropriate to frame following guidelines to invoke Rule 25-A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951:-

Guidelines on Awaiting Posting Orders (APO)

1. Purpose and Justification of APO :

(i). It must be issued based on administrative necessity or public interest and not as a punitive measure.

(ii). The reason for placing an employee under APO must be explicitly stated in writing.

(iii). APO should not be used as a substitute or ruse for disciplinary action.

2. Conditions for Issuing APO :

2.1. Awaiting Posting Order is "usually" to be passed in the following circumstances under Rule 25-A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951:

(i). Returning from leave.

(ii). Reverting to the parent department after deputation.

(iii). Returning from training (domestic or foreign).

(iv). Awaiting posting after relinquishing a previous post.

(v). Non-acceptance of the officer's transfer to another post.

(vi). Preventing the reversion of a government servant. 2.2. Though the conditions mentioned in Rule 25-A are illustrative, but any other condition proposed to be invoked must align with similar administrative necessity (principle of ejusdem generis).

3. Limitations and Restrictions:

(i). APO cannot be used to circumvent Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, which governs suspensions.

(ii). APO should not exceed 30 days unless approved by the Finance Department with valid justification.

(iii). Prolonged APO status without proper cause is misuse of authority.

4. Administrative Accountability:

(i). Reason for an APO order to the concerned employee/official must be conveyed.

[2025:RJ-JD:13158] (3 of 3) [CW-1472/2025]

(ii). Ensure timely issuance of future posting orders to prevent unnecessary financial burden on the government.

(iii). APO orders that amount to de facto suspension or serve as a means to delay the proposed disciplinary action should be avoided."

3. Since the impugned orders are in violation of the aforesaid

guidelines which clearly state that the services of a government

employee cannot be placed under 'Awaiting Posting Orders'

category for more than 30 days without conveying any written

reasons.

4. Accordingly, the petitioners are allowed. The impugned

orders are set aside with liberty to pass appropriate fresh orders,

in case so warranted, by complying with the guidelines, ibid.

5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 56to59-AK Chouhan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)