Anil Kumar Anand vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard learned counsels for the petitioner. In quick return to this Court, the petitioner has again filed the present writ petition on 20.05.2014 aggrieved by the disposal of his representation by the Principal Secretary of the Technical Education Department of Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annex.22) in pursuance of the directions of this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being SBCWP No. 2101/2014- Anil Kumar Anand v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 12.05.2014 with the following directions:--

"4. Looking to the rival submissions and request made by the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty as aforesaid to make a suitable representation against such transfer/posting order Annex.6 dated 3.3.2014 and Annex.8 dated 4.3.2014 to the Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, respondent No. 1 within a period of three days from today and the said authority is requested to decide such representation objectively and fairly after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner in the first instance may appear before the said Principal Secretary on Thursday 15.5.2014 and it is expected that such representation will be decided by the Principal Secretary of the said Department within a period of one week from today.

For a period of one week only and no further, the aforequoted interim order granted by this Court shall continue and the further position would abide by the orders of the Principal Secretary of the concerned Department.

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith."

The petitioner filed his representation on 14.5.2014, copy whereof is placed on record as Annex.20 and as directed by this Court, the representation was disposed of within a period of one week from the date of filing of the same vide the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annex.22), which is assailed in the present writ petition.

Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that not only the petitioner was not heard in the matter by the Principal Secretary but the issues raised in the representation have not been dealt-with by the Principal Secretary and a non-speaking order has been passed by him rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the said authority on 15.05.2014 whereas the said officer was not even attending the office on 15.05.2014 and, therefore, the order is in fact an ex parte order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent No. 3, Arun Kumar Gupta, who was subordinate to him and, therefore, having been given charge of the Director, (Training) now in the Directorate of Technical Education, he will be now the Head of the Department, to whom the petitioner will have to report and consequently the impugned orders dated 03.03.2014 and 04.03.2014 and the order passed by the Principal Secretary now on 19.05.2014, deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.

The impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annex.22) clearly stipulates that the petitioner appeared before the said authority on 14.05.2014 itself while giving his representation instead of 15.05.2014 and was heard in the matter. The justificator of passing the impugned orders dated 03.03.2014 and 4.3.2014 have been explained in detail in the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 by the said Principal Secretary in the following manner:--

Thus, the issues raised in the earlier writ petition as well as now before this Court, have already been dealt-with by the Principal Secretary of the Department in the said order and it has been specifically mentioned that there are 2 (two) posts of Director in the said Department one for the Director (Training) in the Directorate and second, the Director (RCVET) and since there was no separately specified post of Director in RCVET, Memorandum of Association, the said post of Director was also created in the Directorate, Technical Education, but these two posts carry same pay scales and there is no subordination of one to another, therefore, the contention raised by the present writ petitioner that the private respondent No. 3 will act as a higher authority, to whom, the petitioner has to report, appears to be misconceived. Moreso, in the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 rejecting petitioner''s representation, it has been categorically stated that the impugned orders dated 3.03.2014 and 04.03.2014 have been passed in the public interest as well as in the interest of administration. These administrative matters hardly require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the opportunity of representation against these orders was given to the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, which has been availed by the petitioner and the impugned order has now been passed on 19.05.2014, which upon perusal as aforesaid and quoted above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same. In view of above, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.