Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1455 (RAJ)

Kalu Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2002-08-21

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 31.7.2002 with a prayer that order dated 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4) passed by the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. Division 1st, Pali (respondent No. 2) by which the previous transfer order dated 25.7.2002 (Annex. 1) was cancelled be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner was working on the post of Helper Grade-III at Jal Praday Yojana at Bhuryasani from where he was transferred to Jal Praday Yojana at Jetpur with immediate effect on 25.7.2002. A copy of order dated 25.7.2002 passed by the A. En., PHED. Dist. Sub-Division Rohit is marked an Annex. 1. (ii) That in pursuance of order dated 25.7.2002 (Annex. 1), the petitioner was relieved by the J.En., PHED Sub-Division Rohit vide order dated 26.7.2002 (Annex. 2). (iii) That in compliance of transfer from Bhuryasani to Jetpur, the petitioner joined at Jetpur on 27.7.2002. (iv) that through order dated 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4), the Executive Engineer, PHED, Division 1st, Pali (respondent No. 2), cancelled the order dated 25.7.2002 (Annex. 1). Hence, this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer. 3. The main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the order dated 25.7.2002 (Annex. 1) has been complied with and has been implemented, it could not be cancelled and therefore, the order dated 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4) is illegal and the order dated 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4) should be set aside. 4. I have heard both and perused the record. 5. This Court in the case of Gangaram Bishnoi v. State and Ors. reported in WLR 1994 Raj. 537 has held that once transfer order stands executed and implemented, it could not be cancelled and the respondents could have passed fresh transfer order transferring the petitioner if in the exigency of administration it was so required. 6. Placing reliance on the case of Gangaram Bishnoi (supra) just mentioned above wherein the law has been settled and applying the law laid down in the case of Gangaram Bishnoi (supra) in the present case, since the order dated 25.7.2002 (Annex. 1) has been complied with by the petitioner on 27.7.2002 through Annex. 3 by joining at Jetpur, therefore issuance of order dated 29.7.2002 (Annex. 1) has been complied with by the petitioner on 27.7.2002 through Annex. 3 by joining at Jetpur, therefore issuance of order dated 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4) by which previous order of transfer was cancelled is illegal.For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 29.7.2002 (Annex. 4) passed by the Executive Engineer, PHED, Division 1st, Pali (respondent No. 2) cancelling the earlier order of transfer dated 25.7.2002 (Annex. 1) is quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the respondents would be free to transfer the petitioner again if it is required in administrative exigency.Cost made easy.Writ petition allowed. *******