J.R. CHOPRA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Ranger Gr. I, which is a Gazetted post. He was earlier working at Phalodi. However, on account of his family circumstances, he made a request that he be transferred somewhere near Bikaner and, therefore, vide order Ex. I dated 13.9.1989, he was transferred to Bajju in District Bikaner. It is alleged that in pursuance of Order Ex.I, the petitioner joined his duties at Bajju an 26.9.1989 and he is still working there. However, an order Ex.4 dated 29.9.1989 came to be passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur whereby the order Ex. I dated 13.9.1989 was cancelled. Actually, vide Order Ex. I dated 13.9.1989, Shri Narpatsingh Rajpurohit, the petitioner in this case, was posted as Forest Ranger at Bajju and Shri Mahaveer Prasad Bhati, who was working on that post was put under awaiting orders.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that now he has joined as Forest Ranger at Bajju in pursuance of the order Ex. I and, therefore, he cannot be re-transferred unless the permission is sought from the State Govt. It is true that he was transferred to Bajju at his own request keeping in view his family circumstances but the respondents, in order to side with Shri Mahaveer Prasad Bhati have not relieved him and they have cancelled the Order Ex.I. According to the petitioner, the cancellation of Order Ex. I amounts to a fresh order because the Order Ex. I has already been complied with and it has been executed. He has submitted that fresh order can be made only when the permission is sougtat from the Govt. in case the Officer is transferred within a period of two years. He has further submitted that vide order Ex. 4, he has been transferred back to Phalodi prior to two years of his transfer from Phalodi to Bajju. According to the petitioner, the cancellation of his transfer vide Order Ex. 4 is malafide because it has been done in order to accommodate Shri Mahaveer Prasad, who does not want to leave that place. It was submitted that earlier Shri Mahaveer Prasad was transferred to Bikaner vide Order Ex.2 dated 31.12.1988 and in his place, Shri Satish Kumar Dasani was transferred to Bajju but that order Ex. 2: was also got cancelled vide order Ex. 3 dated 2.5.1989. The petitioner was also filed an additional affidavit to the effect that he joined his duties at Bajju on 26.9.1989 and he is still reporting duties at Bajju and has not joined back to Phalodi.

4. The contention of the respondents is that although the petitioner was transferred to Bajju vide Order Ex. 1 at his own request and he has joined there on 26.9.1989 but this transfer order has been cancelled vide order Ex. 4 and, therefore, no sanction of the State Govt. is necessary. According to the respon-dents, in cancellation of the transfer orders, the sanction of the State Govt. is not at all necessary.It was further submitted that the petitioner has already been relieved from Bajju to join his duties back at Phalodi on 4.10.1989. However, as stated above, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit to the effect that he is still continuing at Bajju and has not joined at Phalodi. The respondents have submitted that after the issuance of order Ex. I dated 13.9.1989, Shri Mahaveer Prasad filed a suit in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner and in that suit, a stay order was passed to the effect that Shri Mahaveer Prasad be not relieved. In that suit, an injunction order came to be passed on the basis of the undertaking given by the respondents to maintain the status qua as it! existed on 18.9.1989. However, in pursuance of this stay order, no orders were given to the petitioner not to join his duties at Bajju and he actually joined his duties at Bajju. It is not known whether the petitioner was a party to that suit or not but this much is clear that he has joined his duties in pursuance of the order Ex. I dated 13.9.1989 at Bajju on 26.9.1989

Click Here to Read the rest of this document