Transfer without specific assignment contravenes defined statutory procedures, establishing an Awaiting Posting Order lacking necessary compliance.

ORDER :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 27.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 passed by the second and third respondents, respectively.

2) The facts disclose that prior to the impugned order dated 27.11.2025, the petitioner was working as the Principal Medical Officer at Government Satellite Hospital, Badgaon, Udaipur. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to report for duty in the office of the Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services, Headquarters, Jaipur. Subsequently, by order dated 28.11.2025, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Principal Medical Officer, Government Satellite Hospital, Badgaon, Udaipur.

3) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was directed to report to the office of the Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services, Headquarters, Jaipur, without being issued any specific posting order in the said office. Such an order would amount to an order passed under the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) read with Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1951’). Therefore, such an order can be passed only in circumstances similar to those contemplated under the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) and Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951. The impugned order does not disclose the circumstances under which the petitioner was shifted from one headquarters to another without any specific posting. Accordingly, the said order is untenable in light of the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) read with Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951.

4) It is also his contention that even if such power is vested in the authority, a change of headquarters without a posting amounts to placing the employee under ‘Awaiting Posting Orders,’ and such order cannot be beyond one week when it is made on account of change of charge of the employee’s old post. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of (i) Hemendra Kumar Trivedi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6261/2017, decided on 13.03.2018, (ii) Ganraj Bishnoi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15366/2024, decided on 17.02.2025, (iii) Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10490/2024, decided on 09.09.2024.

5) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has tried to defend the impugned order by contending that such power is vested in the authority which passed the impugned order. It was contended that a reading of Rule 7(38) and Rule 20 of the Rules of 1951 show that the power to transfer includes the power to change headquarters. On this basis, it was argued that the impugned order, by which the petitioner’s headquarters was changed, amounts to a transfer and not an order of ‘Awaiting Posting Orders.’ It was further contended that such power flows from Rule 13 of the Rules of 1951, which places a government servant at the disposal of the Government and permits his employment in any manner required by the proper authority, without any claim for additional remuneration.

6) It is also his contention that Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951 does not speak of ‘Awaiting Posting Orders.’ It merely governs the entit