JUDGMENT 1. This is an intra Court appeal filed by the respondents of Writ Petition No. 83 of 2000 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1951 against an order dated 19.02.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondent.Facts of the case are these: 2. The facts of the case are set out in detail in the impugned order and hence, we do not consider it necessary to again mention the same facts in that much of detail as are set out in the impugned order except to mention few to appreciate the issue raised in the matter. 3. In short, the facts are that the respondent a state employee who was at the relevant time working on the post of what is called "Artiest" at Udaipur under Respondent No. 4 i.e. in charge T.B. Sanitarium was asked by an order dated 10.05.1994 (Annexure-9) of respondent No.4 to join at Director Medical and Health Services, Jaipur (respondent No.2). This order was passed, as it seems, due to abolition of the post of Artist due to some administrative exigencies. It is against this order, the respondent (employee) felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short called "Tribunal"). The Tribunal dismissed the respondents appeal and upheld the order impugned therein. The respondent felt aggrieved of this order filed writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arise. The learned Single Judge by impugned order allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Tribunal and in consequence the order that was impugned in the appeal before the Tribunal. It is against this order; the State has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and in consequence, while setting aside of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge restore that of the one passed by the Tribunal and in consequence, restore that of the order impugned in the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. 5. In our considered view, the order directing the respondent to join at Jaipur was not liable to be questioned on any ground on judicial side either before the Tribunal in appeal much less in writ jurisdiction at the instance of respondent. In other words, there was absolutely no ground on which the order directing the respondent to join at Jaipur could be assailed on judicial side. It was for the reasons that firstly, the order did not affect any of the recognised rights of the respondent attached with his post such as, it was not passed by way of punishment, it also did not result in reducing either his pay scale or rank nor it in any way affected his promotional avenues in service. In other words, the impugned order was not in any way violative of any of the provisions of Article 311 and nor any of the Rules governing his service conditions. At least no such ground was taken much less pressed in service to show prejudice, if caused to the respondent on account of passing of such order. Secondly, the order only directed the respondent to join at Jaipur in one particular department of State. In other words, it was a case where, the state employee was asked to join from place A to place B and from C department to D department. It is not in dispute that both the departments i.e. C and D are State departments and functions under the States control. In this circumstance, if the respondent is asked to work in A department in place of B department and at new place would not give him a right to challenge such order on judicial side. Thirdly, in our opinion, the impugned order being essentially in the nature of an administrative order, the same had to be complied with by the respondent on its receipt. 6. In our opinion, therefore, the writ court erred in setting aside of an order on the ground that it was passed by particular department of State. As observed supra, with respect, we cannot subscribe to this reasoning. The writ court virtually travelled in administrative field of State with a view to find out as to which department of State should pass such order and which department actually passed it. As observed supra, with respect, we cannot subscribe to this reasoning. The writ court virtually travelled in administrative field of State with a view to find out as to which department of State should pass such order and which department actually passed it. This type of inquiry, in our opinion, was foreign to the writ court because it did not involve any judicial determination under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the light of foregoing discussion, which is more than sufficient, we allow this appeal filed by the State and set aside the impugned order passed by writ court. As a consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed and that of the order of the Tribunal restored. As a result thereof, the order of State (Annexure 9) impugned in the appeal before the Tribunal by respondent is restored as being valid and comes into operation for giving effect to it against the respondent (employee).We accordingly grant two weeks time to the respondent (employee) to join at a place mentioned in the order dated 10.05.1994 (Annexure-9) iee. At Director, Department of Medical and Health, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur failing which departmental action be initiated against him for non-compliance of the orders of State under the Rules on administrative side in addition to for noncompliance of this court order on judicial side.Appeal Allowed. *******