Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalawati Ninama vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13253) on 10 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:13253]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5580/2025
Kalawati Ninama W/o Late Sh. Amrit Lal Maida, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Hariyapada, Katumbi, Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Medical,
Health Department And Family Welfare Department,
Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Directorate Medical Health And
Family Welfare Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Principal Medical Officer, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital,
Banswara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
Mr. Tanuj Jain.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
10/03/2025
1. Petitioner herein, inter-alia, seeks quashing of two orders i.e.
dated 26.02.2025 (Annex.3), vide which she has been kept under
Awaiting Posting Order ('APO') and headquartered at Directorate,
Medical Health & Welfare Department, Jaipur & dated 27.02.2025
(Annex.4), vide which she has been relieved.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:13253] (2 of 3) [CW-5580/2025]
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.
(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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is sanguine that, in case she is allowed to file a representation qua
[2025:RJ-JD:13253] (3 of 3) [CW-5580/2025]
the grievance raised in the present writ petition and the same is
taken up on the administrative side, it will receive favorable
treatment. Therefore, the competent authority may decide the
same within a reasonable time, in light of the aforesaid judgment,
in accordance with law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, without commenting on the merits
of the case, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with
a direction to the competent authority to decide the
representation (may file fresh, if not already filed) of the
petitioners, in accordance with law, keeping in view the
observations made in the case of Ganraj Bishnoi (supra), as
expeditiously as possible.
5. Till the representation is decided, the impugned orders dated
26.02.2025 (Annex.3) & 27.02.2025 (Annex.4) shall be kept in
abeyance, qua the petitioner.
6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
10-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
