[2025:RJ-JD:37110]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15012/2025 Mrs. Nidhi Sharma W/o Shri Abhishek Sharma, aged about 36 Years, R/o 479A, Triveni Apartment, Shri Ram Vihar, Mahal Yojana, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302017. ----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Narendra Kumar, Currently Posted at Government Higher Education School, Baisth, Alwar, Rajasthan, through Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner, Rajasthan (Employee ID RJBP199507000053).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari through (VC)

Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

19/08/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of cancellation of deputation of petitioner who has deputed by transfer to the deputation post.

2. The first ground of challenge of the order is that the Rules more particularly Rule 144A of the Rules of Rajasthan Service Rule, 1951 and Circular dated 07.10.2022 prescribed deputation by transfer which is of temporary nature cannot exceed more than one year and means that petitioner cannot be disturbed before one year.

3. The second ground of challenge is that the deputation order of the private respondent who is also transferred on the temporary basis in place of the petitioner's deputation post resulted the petitioner was kept under Await Posting Order (APO) which action is politically motivated.

4. The third ground of challenge is that the order of cancellation of deputation has been passed without assigning any reason.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prescription of Rule for deputation of one year for the temporary deputation by transfer shall be interpreted to mean that the before the one year the employee cannot be transferred.

6. Rule 144A(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 reads as follows: -

"2. The term 'deputation' will cover only appointments made by transfer on a temporary basis. If does not cover permanent appointment made by transfer or final absorption or by direct recuitment in competition with open market candidates to the aforesaid bodies."

7. The deputation term has been defined and the deputation defined under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 more particularly Rule 144 mean only applicable to deputation by transfer for temporary period. The prescription of temporary period only mean that in the grab of order of deputation the transfer by exercising powers of temporary posting, the authorities cannot continue such a deputation beyond the one year. It does not mean that re- transfer cannot be done before one year. A temporary employee has no vested right to ask for the mandamus to continue in the post held by him; therefore, the said contention unmerited and same is rejected. As regards the second ground argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of transfer of the private respondent had made the petitioner to allocate under the Await Posting Order (APO) and such exercise has been done malafidely with a political influence. The specific malafides are not attributal against any of the political leaders and such party has not been impleaded in this proceeding. It is not a case that the authorities who have exercise the power of posting the petitioner as an Await Posting Order (APO) lacks the jurisdiction to pass such kind of order; therefore, the second ground is also meritless and same is rejected. So far as the third ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cancellation of deputation order do not speak reason for transfer. If, any reasons are assigned such a reasons tantamount to amount to stigmatic then it is bad in law. The order of cancellation do not required any reasons to be assigned. It is not a case of the petitioner