[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abubakar Siddik vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6755) on 5 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6755] [CW-2358/2026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2358/2026
Abubakar Siddik S/o Molvi Abdul Hakam, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Hameerani, Jaisindhar, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The State Project Coordinator-Cum-Commissioner,
Rajasthan State Education Council, Dr. Radhakrishnan
Shiksha Sankul, Eklavya Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Opp. OTS Bridge, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
5. The Chief Block Education Officer, Block Ramsar, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kailash Jangid, Adv. with
Mr.M.S.Shekhawat, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
Mr.Yuvraj Singh, Adv.
Mr.Rajendra Singh Bhati, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
05/02/2026
1) The writ petition was filed challenging the transfer order
dated 10.01.2026 passed by the second respondent.
2) The ground of challenge is that the petitioner was
deputed to the post of Resource Person in the Office of the Chief
Block Education Officer, Ramsar, District Barmer, vide order dated
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:09:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6755] (2 of 4) [CW-2358/2026]
05.08.2021, and he joined the office on 13.08.2021. The
conditions of deputation clearly stipulate that he shall remain on
deputation for a minimum period of one year, which may be
further extended, subject to a maximum period of four years.
Before the petitioner could be relieved from the post of Resource
Person, the impugned transfer order was passed, which is
unsustainable.
3) The contention of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner is that without revoking the deputation order and
without relieving the petitioner from the deputation post, the
petitioner could not have been transferred. It is further submitted
that as per Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951
(hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules of 1951"), a person
occupying a deputation post is required to be reverted to the
original department, and until a fresh posting is given, he is
required to be kept under APO. Such procedure is not followed in
this case.
4) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the respondents submits that revocation of a deputation order is
required only when the deputation is in force. In the present case,
the deputation of the petitioner came to an end on 05.08.2025,
whereas the transfer order was issued on 10.01.2026. Upon
completion of the maximum period of four years, the petitioner is
deemed to have been reverted to the original department and
deemed to have been relieved, and thereafter continued to be in
the parent department. It is further submitted that revocation is
required only when the deputation is in force. On the date of
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:09:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6755] (3 of 4) [CW-2358/2026]
transfer, no valid deputation existed in favour of the petitioner.
Therefore, a prayer is made for dismissal of the writ petition.
5) I have considered the submissions of both the parties and
carefully perused the material available on record.
6) The facts and contentions clearly establish that the
petitioner was deputed to the office of the Chief Block Education
Officer as a Resource Person. The deputation order was issued on
05.08.2021, and the petitioner joined the deputation post on
13.08.2021. The conditions of selection clearly provide that the
minimum period of deputation is one year and the maximum
period is four years. However, the deputation department may
revoke such an appointment if the services of the deputationist
are found to be unsatisfactory. Revocation of deputation is
required only when there is a valid subsisting deputation. In the
present case, the deputation of the petitioner came to an end by
efflux of time on 13.08.2025, being the date on which the
maximum deputation period of four years was completed. It
appears that despite completion of the deputation period, the
petitioner continued to work on the same post, ignoring the expiry
of the deputation tenure. Such a course of action is contrary to the
selection process and the conditions of deputation. Upon
completion of the deputation period, there is a deemed reversion
to the parent department. The impugned transfer order was
passed when such deemed reversion had already taken effect.
7) Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951 applies whenever an
employee is placed on Awaiting Posting Order, and it has nothing
to do with the transfer order.
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:09:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6755] (4 of 4) [CW-2358/2026]
8) Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner has no merit and the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
9) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
10) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
11) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN), J
182-NK/-
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:09:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
