ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition assailing the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the respondent-Department whereby the petitioner was kept under Awaiting Posting Order as well as the order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby his appeal was dismissed with costs. The petitioner prays for quashing of the said orders and seeks permission to continue his service at 8 SDS, Sardul Sahar, District Sri Ganganagar. 2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner is serving as Head Master at Government Secondary School, Basir, Tehsil Tibi, District Hanumangarh. While discharging his duties at the aforesaid post, the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 18.10.2016 from his then place of posting to 8 SDS, Sardul Sahar, District Sri Ganganagar. A copy of the said transfer order, wherein the petitioner’s name appears at Serial No. 37, is annexed as Annexure–1. 2.1. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 3133/2016 before the learned Tribunal on multiple grounds, inter alia, challenging the denial of TA/DA benefits. A copy of the Memo of Appeal is annexed as Annexure–2. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had categorically pleaded therein that he had never expressed any willingness or submitted any representation seeking transfer during the year 2016. 2.2. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration, issued notice to the respondents and granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 10.11.2016. A copy of the interim order is annexed as Annexure–3. 2.3. The respondent department filed its reply, candidly admitting that the petitioner had not made any request for transfer in 2016, and accordingly, TA/DA was sanctioned in his favour vide order dated 02.11.2016. A copy of the reply along with the said order is annexed collectively as Annexure–4. 2.4. The private respondent, Shri Krishan Lal Godara, also submitted his reply before the Tribunal, asserting that the petitioner had expressed willingness for a mutual transfer in the year 2015. A copy of his reply is annexed as Annexure–5. 2.5. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent department passed another order dated 02.06.2017 placing the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Orders on account of the upgradation of his school. A copy of this order is annexed as Annexure–6. A copy of his reply is annexed as Annexure–5. 2.5. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent department passed another order dated 02.06.2017 placing the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Orders on account of the upgradation of his school. A copy of this order is annexed as Annexure–6. Being aggrieved by the subsequent order dated 02.06.2017, the petitioner preferred a fresh appeal before the learned Tribunal, registered as Appeal No. 862/2017, on 05.06.2017, raising various grounds including the pendency of his earlier appeal. A copy of the said appeal memo is annexed as Annexure–7. 2.6. In view of the passing of the subsequent order, the petitioner withdrew his earlier Appeal No. 3133/2016 on 08.06.2017. A copy of the withdrawal order is annexed as Annexure–8. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, dismissed Appeal No. 862/2017 vide order dated 14.06.2017, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/– upon the petitioner and directions were passed to recover the same from his salary. 2.7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.06.2017 and 14.06.2017, the petitioner preferred the instant Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, thereby rendering the transfer order and the subsequent order of the learned Tribunal unsustainable in law. It was submitted that the petitioner had never expressed any willingness or made any request for transfer during the year 2016, which fact stood unequivocally admitted by both the respondent department and the private respondent, and even led to modification of the transfer order with sanction of TA/DA in petitioner’s favour. Despite such categorical admission, the learned Tribunal, without proper appreciation of the record, dismissed the appeal and imposed a heavy cost of Rs. 10,000/–, directing its recovery from the petitioner’s salary and further ordering an inquiry against the officer who had passed the departmental order dated 02.11.2016 directions which are wholly without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s authority. It was thus urged that the impugned order dated 02.06.2017 suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness, and jurisdictional error, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 4. It was thus urged that the impugned order dated 02.06.2017 suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness, and jurisdictional error, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the writ petition, contended that the grounds urged in the petition are nothing but a reiteration of the petitioner’s earlier contentions, all of which stand duly addressed and comprehensively rebutted in the reply already filed. It was submitted that the impugned action of the competent authority is lawful, bona fide, and strictly in conformity with the applicable rules and regulations, suffering from no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity whatsoever. The counsel further argued that matters pertaining to transfer and posting fall exclusively within the administrative domain of the competent authority, and no mala fides or arbitrariness have been established on record so as to warrant judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it was urged that the petitioner’s writ petition is devoid of merit, not maintainable in law, and deserves to be dismissed in limine. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders and the other material as made available to the Court. 5.1. Upon thoughtful consideration of the submissions advanced on both sides, this Court observes that there exists no statutory provision delineating the circumstances, duration, or parameters under which a government servant may be placed under Awaiting Posting Orders (APO). Rule 25 -A of the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES (RSR) merely pertains to allowances and expenditures and does not contemplate or regulate the situation of an employee being kept under Awaiting Posting Order for an indeterminate period. 5.2. It further emerges from the record that the petitioner’s earlier Appeal No. 3133/2016, wherein the transfer order dated 18.10.2016 had already been stayed by interim order dated 10.11.2016, was pending consideration before the learned Tribunal. Despite the subsistence of such interim protection, the petitioner was again subjected to an order dated 02.06.2017 placing him under Awaiting Posting Order, thereby rendering the pending appeal infructuous. The learned Tribunal, instead of appreciating this factual backdrop and the legal implications thereof, proceeded to dismiss the subsequent Appeal No. 862/2017 on 14.06.2017 and further imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/–, directing recovery from the petitioner’s salary. 5.3. This Court finds such approach to be legally unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence. The learned Tribunal, instead of appreciating this factual backdrop and the legal implications thereof, proceeded to dismiss the subsequent Appeal No. 862/2017 on 14.06.2017 and further imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/–, directing recovery from the petitioner’s salary. 5.3. This Court finds such approach to be legally unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence. There exists no statutory rule or administrative instruction prescribing the contingencies, justification, or permissible duration for keeping an employee under Awaiting Posting Order. Rules 25 to 32 of the RSR, which merely define various allowances such as compensatory, conveyance, and permanent travelling allowance, do not address or regulate the concept of Awaiting Posting Order at all. Thus, there exists a legislative vacuum in this regard, and any administrative order placing an employee under Awaiting Posting Order indefinitely and without justification is devoid of statutory foundation and contrary to the spirit of fair governance. 5.4. The Court further observes that the very concept of public employment is founded upon the principle that a public servant is remunerated from the State exchequer for rendering active and meaningful service in furtherance of public interest and administrative efficiency. Keeping an employee idle and unutilised under Awaiting Posting Order not only undermines this fundamental tenet of public service but also results in a wasteful expenditure of public funds. It is a settled principle that a public servant is paid for the performance of duties, not for remaining idle at the cost of the State. The ethos of public service demands optimal utilisation of human resources and adherence to principles of fairness, prudence, and administrative accountability. 5.5. In the present case, there is no cogent justification forthcoming from the respondents for placing the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Order, particularly when his earlier transfer order had already been stayed by a competent judicial order and was pending adjudication before the Tribunal. The impugned action thus suffers from arbitrariness, lack of rationale, and non- application of mind. Furthermore, the imposition of costs of Rs. 10,000/– upon the petitioner is found to be wholly unwarranted, unjustified, and beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Tribunal. The same, therefore, stands quashed and set aside. 6. Consequently, both the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the respondent-Department, to the extent it places the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Orders, and the order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, are hereby set aside. 7. The same, therefore, stands quashed and set aside. 6. Consequently, both the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the respondent-Department, to the extent it places the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Orders, and the order dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, are hereby set aside. 7. It is further directed that if the petitioner is still continuing under Awaiting Posting Order, the respondent–department shall ensure his posting at an appropriate station commensurate with his cadre and designation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. However, it shall remain within the prerogative of the competent authority to determine such posting in accordance with administrative exigencies and the prevailing transfer policy. 7.1. The writ petition, along with the stay petition, is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.