Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rama Shankar Bharti vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:42196-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1085/2025
Rama Shankar Bharti S/o Bholaram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
72, Janta Nagar, Rakdi, Sodala, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical & Health, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical & Health Services Behind Secretariat
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Bheraram Jany (Junior Specialist), Chief Medical Health
Officer, Jalore, District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tarun Jaiman
Mr. Tarun Dudia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Ms. Aditi Sharma
Mr. Pritam Solanki with
Mr. K.L. Chouhan
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
Reserved on : 18.09.2025.
Pronounced on : 08.10.2025.
Per Mr. Bipin Gupta J:
1. The present special appeal (writ) has been preferred by the
appellant against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated
25.07.2025 whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was
dismissed with regard to the transfer of the appellant from the
post of CMHO, Jalore to District Hospital, Sanchore.
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:10:05 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42196-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1085/2025]
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein was
transferred vide order dated 15.01.2025 from CMHO, Jalore to
District Hospital, Sachore. Vide the same order, respondent No.3
Bheraram Jany, Junior Specialist was also posted as CMHO, Jalore.
3. The appellant herein against the order dated 15.01.2025
preferred a writ petition before the Learned Single Judge bearing
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2979/2025 with a ground that his
transfer has been made in violation of the husband-wife transfer
policy of the State and, therefore, the transfer may be set aside.
The Learned Single Judge while deciding the said writ petition vide
order dated 04.02.2025 issued direction to the respondent
Authority to consider the representation of the appellant keeping
in view the husband-wife transfer policy of the State.
4. The appellant, however, did not file any representation
pursuant to the above order but challenged the said order before
the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal No. 238/2025 which was
dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant thereafter filed a second
writ petition bearing number as S.B. Civil Writ petition No.
6369/2025 challenging the order dated 15.01.2025 as well as the
order dated 20.01.2025. The said writ petition was also dismissed
vide order dated 26.03.2025 holding it to be barred by res-
judicata.
5. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the
Division Bench bearing number as D.B. Special Appeal No.
607/2025 assailing the order dated 26.03.2025. The same was
also disposed of on account of the fact that a representation filed
by the appellant has been decided by the Competent Authority
vide order dated 26.05.2025. However, the appellant was given
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:10:05 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42196-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1085/2025]
liberty to challenge the order vide which his representation was
rejected.
6. The appellant thereafter, preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
11697/2025, the order of which is impugned in the present special
appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition without considering
the two aspects which he had stated in his writ petition
challenging the validity of the transfer order of respondent No.3
Bheraram Jany. The first aspect is with regard to the fact that
respondent No.3 is not eligible for the post on which the appellant
was working prior to his transfer and secondly that to
accommodate respondent No.3 the appellant has been
transferred.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on
record.
10. This Court finds that initially when the transfer order dated
15.01.2025 was issued, the appellant did not raise any of the
above stated grounds and solely raised the ground that the
transfer of the appellant is in violation of the husband-wife
transfer policy. The Learned Single Judge directed the respondent
to decide the representation of the appellant keeping into
consideration the husband-wife transfer policy. The appellant did
not file any representation and challenged the said order in the
special appeal. The said special appeal was also withdrawn without
any further liberty and was dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:10:05 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42196-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1085/2025]
thereafter, preferred a second writ petition, the same was also
dismissed being barred by res-judicata. During the pendency of
the D.B. Special Appeal No.607/2025, the appellant's preferred a
representation which was rejected by the Competent Authority
vide order dated 26.05.2025 and which was made the subject
matter of the writ petition bearing number as S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 11697/2025.
10. The representation was decided vide order dated 26.05.2025
while keeping into consideration the only issue which was raised
by the appellant. The learned Single Judge considering the said
facts found that the new additional grounds which has been raised
by the appellant cannot be considered. Moreover, the appellant
had been working at District Jalore since 2005 and also observed
that he has been working as CMHO, Jalore since 2022 and,
therefore, opined that the appellant cannot remain at the same
place of posting forever or during complete tenure of his service
and thereby rejected the petition. On perusal of the said order,
this Court finds no error in the impugned order and the same does
not call for any interference.
11. Further the argument of the appellant that the respondent is
not qualified to hold the post of CMHO, Jalore and further that just
to adjust respondent No.3 Bheraram Jany, the orders has been
issued is concerned, this Court finds that the contention of the
appellant is not correct as in the order dated 15.01.2025 itself not
only the Senior Medical Officer but Junior Specialist have also
been posted as CMHO of different district hospitals.
12. Further, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the
appellant has been working since 2005 at District Jalore and
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:10:05 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42196-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1085/2025]
thereafter also as CMHO, Jalore since 2022 and, therefore, no
person can hold a lien on a place of posting for entire tenure of his
service and cannot claim permanency at one place.
13. The transfer is always within the domain of the employer and
in the present case, no arbitrariness on part of the respondent
Authority is found while transferring the appellant from CMHO,
Jalore to District Hospital, Sanchore, District Jalore. More so, the
two hospitals have a distance of less than 132 kms. and,
therefore, also this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the
order passed by the Learned Single Judge and does not call for
any interference. For the foregoing reasons, the present special
appeal (writ) stands dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
15. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
85-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 10:10:05 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
