##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15206]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7060/2026

Chandra Prakash Meena S/o Shri Bhairu Lal Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Jhapha Ki Dhani, Sawai Getore, Malviya Nagar,

Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. The Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School, Golyawas, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.S. Bhawla For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajendra Singh Bhati for

Mr. SS Rathore, AAG

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

02/04/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:

“i) By an appropriate writ, order and direction, the Impugned order dated 10.1.2026 & 12.3.2026 are passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed

and set aside ii) By an appropriate writ, order and direction, the respondents be directed to continue the petitioner on the post of lecturer in Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School,

Golywas District Jaipur.

Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a School Lecturer in the year 2017 and is presently posted at Mahatma Gandhi Government School,

(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 12:14:39 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 08:47:52 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15206] (2 of 4) [CW-7060/2026] Golyawas, Jaipur, where she has been discharging her duties satisfactorily since her appointment. The petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order dated 10.01.2026, whereby she has been transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Dosod, Kotputli Behror, allegedly without any administrative exigency. It is contended that no substitute Lecturer has been posted in her place, indicating that the transfer was not necessitated by any administrative requirement. It is further the case of the petitioner that she was engaged as a Supervisor in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) work under the Election Commission, and as per the guidelines dated 27.10.2025, no transfer of employees engaged in election-related duties could be effected without prior approval. Despite this, the respondent issued the transfer order dated 10.01.2026 without obtaining such approval. Subsequently, realizing the illegality, the respondents issued an order dated 13.01.2026 withdrawing the transfer of employees engaged in SIR duties. However, thereafter, by another order dated 12.03.2026, the said withdrawal order was itself withdrawn, thereby reviving the original transfer order dated 10.01.2026. The petitioner contends that such revival of a previously withdrawn transfer order is arbitrary and impermissible in law, as once the original order stood withdrawn, the same could not have been reinstated without issuing a fresh order in accordance with law. The impugned action of the respondents is thus stated to be illegal,

arbitrary, and unsustainable.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents, while the ban in operation, had transferred the petitioner from Jaipur to Dosod, Kotputli, Behror. He submits that the period of ban came

(Uploaded on 03/04/2026 at 12:14:39 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 08:47:52 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15206] (3 of 4) [CW-7060/2026] into effect up-till 07.02.2026; wherein, petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 10.01.2026 (Annex.P/1). He also submits that respondents realized their mistake and vide order dated 13.01.2026 (Annex.P/5), withdrew the aforesaid transfer order. Thereafter, the respondents, vide order dated 12.03.2026 (Annex.P/6), withdrawn the order dated 13.01.2026; meaning thereby, the said transfer order was given effect. He further submits that once the transfer order has been withdrawn by the respondents, the same cannot be given effect later on by

withdrawi