SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Raj) 2020

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Mathur, J.
Naresh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8440 of 2010.
Decided On : 25-11-2010

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:B.S. Sandhu, Advocate.
For the Respondents: D.R. Kawadia, Deputy Government Counsel.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 226 – In present case petitioner was kept awaiting posting order only on will on political organisations but not for administrative purposes – Court held it was illegal as it was without reasonable cause and also directed the Government to appoint him as L.D.C at office where he was working prior to passed order – Court allowed the petition and quashed the order.

JUDGMENT

1. - By the order dated 23.8.2010, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj placed the petitioner awaiting posting orders (APO) and fixed his Head Quarter at the Directorate, Integrated Child Development Services, Jaipur. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner entered in the services of the respondents being appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the year 2002. On 1.10.2009, a complaint was submitted by one office-bearer of Nagar Yuvak Congress, Srikaranpur to the Agriculture Marketing State Minister to the Government of Rajasthan in following terms:-

"fo"k;kuqlkj fuosnu ;g gS fd Jh ujs'k dqekj L.D.C. efgyk ,oa cky fodkl foHkkx] Jh dj.kiqj esa dk;Zjr gSA ;g gekjh ikVhZ inkf/kdkfj;ksa ls vPNk O;ogkj ugha djrk gSA ifj;kstuk vUrxZr dqN vkaxu ckM+h dsUnz ('kgjh) Lohd~r gq,s gS ftl gsrq gekjh dk;Zdkj.kh ds inkf/kdkjh C.D.P.O. dk;kZy; esa feyus x,s rks mDr deZpkjh us dgk fd ge okMZ lHkkvksa ds ek/;e ls dk;ZdrkZ lgkf;dk dk p;u djsaxs] geus dgk fd dqN gekjh ikVhZ ds inkf/kdkjh o dk;ZdrkZvksa ds lEcfU/k;ksa dk bl p;u izfdz;k esa fo'ks"k /;ku j[ks] mDr O;fDr us gekjh ckr dks dksbZ rotks ugha nh rFkk gekjk dksbZ Hkh lEeku ugha fd;k x;kA

vr% vkt ge ikVhZ inkf/kdkjh vkils O;fDrxr HksaV dj fuosnu djrs gS fd ujs'k dqekj L.D.C. dk LFkkukUrj.k vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ p;u izfdz;k rd fdlh vU; LFkku ij djus dk Je djsaA"

(emphasis supplied)

3. As per the petitioner, acting upon the complaint dated 1.10.2009, the Deputy Director (Child Development), Integrated Child Development Services, Sriganganagar posted him in the office of Deputy Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Sriganganagar. In pursuant to the order aforesaid, the petitioner was relieved on 14.10.2009. The Deputy Director (Administration), Integrated Child Development Services, Jaipur under a letter dated 19.5.2010 sought reasons from the Deputy Director (Child Development), Integrated Child Development Services, Sriganganagar for keeping the petitioner awaiting posting orders in his office. However, an order dated 18.5.2010 was passed by the Deputy Director(woman and child development) Department, Sriganganagar posting the petitioner at Karanpur. On being posted at Karanpur, a complaint was again made by some office-bearers of Nagar Yuvak Congress, Srikaranpur and that reads as follow:-

ije vkn.kh; d~f"k foi.ku jkT; eU=h th]

jktLFkku ljdkj] t;iqjA

fo"k;% ujs'k dqekj d0fy0 dk LFkkukUrj.k gsrqA

ekU;ojth]

fo"k;kuqlkj fuosnu ;g gS fd efgyk cky fodkl esa dk;Zjr ujs'k dqekj ikVhZ inkf/kdkjh o dk;ZdrkZvksa ds dgs vuqlkj dk;Z ugha djrk gS ,oa ikVhZ dk;ZdrkZ blls [kq'k ugha gS iwoZ eas vkidks fnukad dks v/;{k uxj ;qod dkaxzsl Jh dj.kiqj us vkidks i= fy[k voxr djk;k Fkk ftldh ,sot esa vkius bldks Jh xaxkuxj dk;kZy; esa A.P.O. djok;k FkkA ysfdu vc ;g iqu% okfil C.D.P.O. dk;kZy; Jh dj.kiqj esa vk x;k gS ftlls gekjs eku lEeku dks Bsl igqaph gSA

vr% vkils fuosnu ;g gS fd mDr deZpkjh dk LFkkukUrj.k ftys ls ckgj nqLFkZ LFkku ij djokus dk Je djs rkfd deZpkjh;ksa esa ikVhZ dk;ZdrkZvksa esa 'kk[k LFkkfir gks ldsA

(emphasis supplied)

4. After submission of the complaint aforesaid, the order impugned was passed keeping the petitioner's head quarter at Directorate, Integrated Child Development Services, Jaipur. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts of the case clearly establishes that the petitioner is kept awaiting posting orders for extraneous consideration and not in administrative exigency. It is submitted that the respondents, as a matter of fact, are misusing their administrative authority by keeping a public servant awaiting posting orders without any just reason.

5. Per contra, as per the respondents, the petitioner was placed under awaiting posting orders as certain complaints were received against him and further an enquiry as per Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top