##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:12022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5210/2026

Rajkumar S/o Shri Jagmohan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village And Post Bibasar Via Nuwan District Jhunjhunu.

Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan,

Jaipur.

2. The District Education Officer, (Head Quarter) Secondary Education, Jhunjhunu.

3. The Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Doomara District Jhunjhunu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manik Kaswan with

Mr. Vishal Kumar &

Ms. Pooja Sharma on behalf of Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

23/03/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 13.03.2026 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, (for short, 'Tribunal'), with the contention that although after recording all the contents of the appeal and the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal, findings have been given by the Tribunal, yet only notices were issued and no stay order was granted, despite the fact that the petitioner was having

prima facie case in his favour.

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:37:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:50:01 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:12022] (2 of 4) [CW-5210/2026] 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 26.02.2026 was issued by the District Education Officer, (Headquarter) Secondary Education, Jhunjhunu,, whereby mentioning administrative reasons, the petitioner was kept awaiting posting order and was directed to report in the Office of Chief Block Education Officer, Integrated Education, Buhana,

Jhunjhunu.

3. Such order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Appeal No.844/2026 before the Tribunal on the ground that the order of keeping the petitioner APO dated 26.02.2026 is in direct violation of Rule 25A of Rajasthan Services Rules (for short, 'RSR'), where the State Government can exercise powers of keeping an employee awaiting posting order on the limited grounds as prescribed under the Rules. In the instant case, as there was general ban on transfers imposed by the State Government, in order to defeat the ban orders, in the garb of issuing order for keeping petitioner APO, virtually an attempt has

been made to transfer the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have adopted such indirect practice to flout the order of general ban and during such period, instead of passing direct transfer orders, firstly an employee is kept awaiting posting order and later on by way of issuing a posting order, he is posted

at another place.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the similar circumstances and with the similar allegations, when the other person approached the Tribunal by way of filing Appeals No.839/2026, 739/2026, 203/2026, 5129/2025, 546/2026 &

(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:37:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:50:01 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:12022] (3 of 4) [CW-5210/2026] 149/2026, while recording the sole reason that the order of APO has been issued in violation of Rule 25A of RSR, the Tribunal has granted stay in favour of respective appellants, but in the case of the petitioner, stay has not been granted, which is apparently a

discriminatory treatment with the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10490/2024 (Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), where the similar order has been held to be

against the provisions of law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10962/2015 (Dhoolchand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), where also Co-ordinate Bench took note o