Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Ganraj Bishnoi S/o Kesararam Bishnoi - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15366 Of 2024
Decided On : 17-02-2025
(A) Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 - Rule 25-A - Awaiting Posting Orders (APO) - Petitioners challenged their placement under APO without proper justification, alleging administrative impropriety and violation of service rules - Respondents defended the orders citing public interest and administrative exigency - Court held that APO cannot be used as a punitive measure or substitute for disciplinary action, and must be justified with explicit reasons - Orders set aside due to lack of communicated reasons. (Paras 24, 25)
(B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Courts generally refrain from interfering in administrative decisions unless there is a patent violation of law or extreme hardship - The authority to transfer or place an employee under APO lies with the employer, and employees have no vested right to remain in a particular position. (Paras 8, 8.2)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, serving in various departments, were placed under Awaiting Posting Orders (APO) without proper reasons, leading to claims of humiliation and arbitrary treatment. Respondents argued that the orders were justified due to administrative reasons and ongoing inquiries.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lack of communicated reasons for the APO orders constituted a violation of the principles governing administrative actions. The impugned orders were set aside, allowing for fresh orders to be issued with proper justification.
Issues: The main issues included whether the placement under APO was justified and whether it constituted a punitive measure or a legitimate administrative action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that APO orders must be based on valid contingencies and cannot be used to circumvent disciplinary procedures. The authority must explicitly state the reasons for such orders.
Result: All impugned orders (APO) set aside, with directions for fresh orders to be issued in accordance with law.
Judgment :
ARUN MONGA, J.
1. Vide instant common order, the entire bunch of petitions as detailed in Appendix ‘A’ is being disposed of as common controversy is involved therein.
2. Petitioners herein, serving in different departments, are assailing the respective orders vide which their services have been put in a category, what is called ‘Awaiting Posting Orders’ (APO). The individual facts of the cases are not relevant for adjudication of the controversy herein, as this Court is to judge upon the legality, as well as, the alleged administrative impropriety of the impugned orders (APO) passed by the respondents.
3. Common grievance of the petitioners being, that by virtue of respective impugned transfer orders of APO, as a bolt from blue, work has been withdrawn from them without assigning/conveying any reasons or if/where conveyed, the same are not tenable. Apart therefrom, under the garb of making them APO, they are being put to humiliation at their work place.
4. At this point, it would be apposite to note the stand taken by respondents in their reply filed in the captioned Writ Petition No. 15366/2024 (petitioner is a Nursing Officer), which being comprehensive one can be broadly treated as defense on law qua all petitions. The relevant of the same is as under :
“1. It is submitted that the petitioner is against the order dated 03.09.2024 and the order dated 06.09.2024, whereby the petitioner was kept on an await posting order due to negligence in performing his duties and as a primary enquiry is pending against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is not working up to the mark and up to the satisfaction of the answering responding authorities. So, in the public interest and due to administrative reasons, the petitioner is kept on an await posting order. The order passed by the answering respondents is just, proper, and legal, which was passed in accordance with the law and the powers vested in the state government. Hence, the same is liable to be maintained, and the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the await posting order is liable to be dismissed.
3. The petitioner has challenged the discretionary order passed by the state government. The petitioner has relied on Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958). The Rules of 1958 provide in Rule 25-A about the pay during the period of the await posting order. There are no governing principles mentioned in Rule 25-A which provide that await posting orders are made only in certain situations and circumstances. The petitioner submitted that the grounds of the Government of Rajasthan's decision mentioned under Rule 25-A of the Rules of 1958 govern the field, but the term 'usually' mentioned therein provides that the mentioned conditions are illustrative and not exhaustive. So, the reliance placed by the petitioner on Rajasthan Government decisions is not sustainable, and the state government has the authority to pass await posting orders as and when the same are required in the public interest. The illustrative conditions mentioned in government orders are not exhaustive, and therefore, they cannot be considered as the only reasons under which the await posting orders can be issued. The petitioner is an employee of the state government who has to work as per the directions and supervision of the state government. The state government has the authority to place the employees under an await posting order when the same is required in the public interest and due to administrative exigency. In this matter, the public interest required that the petitioner should not be continued at the present posting and should not be permitted to continue as a Nursing Officer at Pokran. So, the order dated 21.06.2024 was passed by the answering respondents, and the same is in accordance with the domain and authority of the state government, and the same is liable to be maintained.
4. The authority to transfer and pass an await posting order squarely
Awaiting Posting Orders (APO) cannot be used as punitive measures or substitutes for disciplinary action; explicit reasons must be provided for such administrative decisions.
Transfer without specific assignment contravenes defined statutory procedures, establishing an Awaiting Posting Order lacking necessary compliance.
Awaiting posting orders must comply with transfer bans and require proper justification and permissions to be valid.
The awaiting posting order cannot be issued without urgency and proper permissions, violating established rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the transfer policy and statutory provisions in making transfer decisions, and the binding nature of policies framed by....
Administrative decisions affecting service positions must adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice, comply with existing judicial orders, and be founded on lawful premises.
Indefinitely placing a public servant under Awaiting Posting Orders without statutory basis violates service law principles and fairness in governance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
