Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2823 (RAJ)

Rugnath Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-25

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 15.11.2022 (Annex.13) passed by the District Collector, Pali and order dated 21.10.2022 (Annex.12) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer as well as the order dated 29.09.2022 (Annex.11) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'). 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that by order dated 19.09.2022 (Annex.7) the respondent No.5 was transferred from Sojat Road to Bhilwara. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 19.09.2022, he (respondent No.5) approached the Tribunal, which on 29.09.2022 (Annex.11) passed an interim order, whereby operation of the order dated 19.09.2022 was stayed. It is claimed that said order was not communicated by the respondent and therefore, on 07.10.2022 vide Annex.8 the petitioner who was Awaiting Posting Orders, was posted at Circle Sojat Road. It is claimed that the Tehsildar required the petitioner to take charge, whereupon on 13.10.2022 the petitioner took the charge. Whereafter, based on the interim order granted by the Tribunal, the Board of Revenue cancelled the order dated 19.09.2022 and on cancellation of said order, on 15.11.2022 (Annex.13) the petitioner has been transferred from Circle Sojat Road to Circle Shivpura, Tehsil Sojat. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.5, while obtaining the interim order dated 29.09.2022 from the Tribunal, has not pointed out that on 23.09.2022 (Annex.14) he was relieved, which resulted in passing of the said interim order and consequential orders by the Board of Revenue in cancelling the order of his transfer and the order dated 15.11.2022, whereby the petitioner who was posted in place of respondent No.5, has now been transferred. Submissions have been made that merely on account of cancellation of the order dated 19.09.2022, the respondent No.5 does not get posted back at the place from where he was transferred, therefore, passing of the order dated 15.11.2022 (Annex.13) by the District Collector transferring the petitioner, based on cancellation of the order by Board of Revenue is not justified. 4. Submissions have been made that merely on account of cancellation of the order dated 19.09.2022, the respondent No.5 does not get posted back at the place from where he was transferred, therefore, passing of the order dated 15.11.2022 (Annex.13) by the District Collector transferring the petitioner, based on cancellation of the order by Board of Revenue is not justified. 4. Counsel for the respondent No.5 made submissions that the fact regarding the petitioner having been relieved was brought to the notice of the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, on consideration, specially of the fact that the petitioner was transferred by merely indicating the district, without the place of posting, has passed the order staying the operation of the order impugned and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard, has no substance. 5. Further submissions have been made that once the order dated 19.09.2022 has been cancelled by the Board of Revenue, the natural consequences would be that the petitioner, who was placed at the place from where he was transferred and, therefore, the petitioner has rightly been transferred from Circle Sojat Road. It is also submitted that if the petitioner has any grievances qua the order dated 15.11.2022, the petitioner can always file an appeal against the said order and filing of the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The grievance raised by the petitioner, arises from passing of the order dated 21.10.2022 (Annex.12) by the Board of Revenue wherein, on account of passing of interim order by the Tribunal, the order transferring the respondent No.5 dated 19.09.2022 has been cancelled. Once the order dated 19.09.2022 was cancelled on 21.10.2022 by the Board of Revenue, which has passed the said order, the natural consequence was that the status as it existed prior to passing of the order dated 19.09.2022 came to be restored, whereby the respondent No.5 who was transferred from Circle Sojat Road, came to be posted back at the said place and once the said event happened, the petitioner who had filled up the post after passing of the order dated 19.09.2022 was required to be accorded posting, which has been given by order dated 15.11.2022. The submission made that the order dated 29.09.2022 has been obtained from the Tribunal by suppression of the fact that the respondent had been relieved; for the said aspect, the petitioner has to approach the Tribunal only, wherein the appeal is said to be still pending. On the submission regarding the order dated 29.09.2022 having been obtained by suppression, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the District Collector transferring the petitioner, cannot be interfered with by this Court, till such time that the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Tribunal remains in force during pendency of the appeal. 8. So far as the order dated 15.11.2022 is concerned, on the grounds raised regarding the fact that by cancellation of the order dated 19.09.2022, the respondent does not get posted to Sojat Road, having been negated, the challenge laid to the said order also does not have any substance. 9. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is therefore, dismissed.