HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23004/2025 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Shyopura, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. The Chief District Education Officer-Cum-District Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha, Phalodi, District Phalodi, Rajasthan.

4. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Phalodi, District Phalodi, Rajasthan.

5. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Aau, District Phalodi, Rajasthan. (Presently Given The Additional Charge Of Petitioners Office).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

27/11/2025

1. Heard on stay application.

2. The challenge is made to the order of posting of the petitioner by the impugned Awaiting Posting Orders ('APO') dated 13.11.2025 (Annex.-5) and Relieving Order dated

15.11.2025 (Annex.-6).

3. Without the illustrated contingency and under similar circumstances by merely recording 'administrative exigency' without indicating the nature of 'administrative exigency', the impugned orders of APO has been passed by the respondents-Authority and such orders are contrary to the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ganraj Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCW No. 15366/2024 decided on 17.02.2025, whereunder, a coordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-

"19. From a conjoint reading of Rules 7 and 25A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951,it is no doubt evident that for passing an A.P.O. order, the seven contingencies outlined in Rule 25A are illustrative rather than exhaustive. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that the Rule 25A may be used to circumvent the safeguards enshrined in Rule 13, which restricts suspension only under certain specific conditions. If an A.P.O. order is issued without disclosing a valid contingency—or if the disclosed reason contravenes Rule 13—it amounts to violation of the legislative intent, under the garb of an administrative exigency. Such a course is clearly not permissible under the law. Accordingly, whenever power under Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) is invoked in conjunction with Rule 25A, the administrative authority must explicitly state the reasons for invoking contingencies beyond the seven specified in the Rule. Thus, in all cases, the administrative authority must articulate the rationale behind an awaiting posting order—whether it falls within the enumerated contingencies or stems from an administrative exigency.

19.1. While interpreting Rules 7(8)(b)(iii) and 25A, principle of Ejusdem Generis shall necessarily apply and thus other non- exhaustive circumstances must have similar cognitive meaning. Illustratively, if a provision of law refers to “cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles,” the phrase “other vehicles” would be interpreted only to include similar modes of transport (e.g., buses, vans) but not airplanes or boats. When we Apply Ejusdem Generis to Rule 25A, it is borne out that the rule provides a list of specific circumstances where it applies viz. Returning from leave; Repatriation from deputation within India; Completion of training or foreign assignment; Returning from training within India or Relinquishing charge of a previous post under orders of the appointing authority and awaiting new posting orders. Rule 7(8)(b) specifically provides that Government may issue orders declaring that in the circumstances specified therein, or in circumstances similar thereto, a Government servant may be treated as on duty. It indicates that the rule applies to “other similar situations” where an employee is awaiting posting orders. The phrase "other similar situations" must be interpreted in the same category as the listed circumstances.

19.2. Resultantly, the