Sunita Bhatnagar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 14.08.2019 (Annex.8), whereby the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected and order dated 21.08.2019 (Annex.9), whereby the petitioner has been relieved pursuant to the order of transfer dated 18.09.2018 (Annex.1).

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner was subjected to transfer under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 by order dated 18.09.2018 (Annex.1). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed SBCWP No.15057/2018, wherein the order dated 11.10.2018 was passed by the Court, whereby the petitioner was accorded opportunity to make a representation with the respondents. On the representation being made by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 11.10.2018, order dated 26.10.2018 (Annex.6) was passed, inter-alia, directing as under :-

"अति याचिकार्थी में पारित अंतरिम स्थगन आदेश दिनांक 11.10.18 की अनुपालना में याचिकार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत अभ्यावेदन में उक्त आधारों में पूर्ववत पदस्थापन स्थान पर ही निरन्तर पदस्थापित रखे जाने की सीमा तक अभ्यावेदन आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार कर निस्तारित किया जाता है। यह आदेश माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा याचिकार्थी के संबंध में जारी किए गए अंतरिम आदेश/याचिका के निर्णयाधीन समझा जावें। संबंधित सूचित हो।"

SBCWP No.15057/2018 filed by the petitioner came to be decided by order dated 25.07.2019 in bunch of cases led by Anil Lamba v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 14586/2018, wherein for the petitioner's category as indicated in Schedule 'C', the petitioners were directed to file a fresh representation and the respondents were directed to decide pending representation / fresh representation to be filed by the petitioners.

Pursuant thereto, the pending representation of the petitioner has been decided by order dated 14.08.2019 (Annex.8), wherein the grievance as raised by the petitioner has not been accepted and the representation has been rejected.

Pursuant thereto, the order dated 21.08.2019 (Annex.9) has been issued relieving the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application with the respondents, inter-alia, indicating that as the representation of the petitioner was already decided on 26.10.2018, re-deciding of the representation vide Annex.8 was not justified, however, the same has not been responded to.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once this Court vide order dated 11.10.2018 directed the respondents to decide the representation made by the petitioner and the order dated 26.10.2018 was passed keeping the petitioner at the place from-where she was transferred, there was essentially no occasion to keep the writ petition pending. However, as the writ petition remained pending and the same was placed in Schedule 'C' to the judgment dated 25.07.2019, the respondents have wrongly decided the representation made by the petitioner and therefore, the same deserves to be set-aside.

Submissions have also been made that the decision of the representation, even otherwise, is not justified and deserves to be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 26.10.2018 was interim in nature and once the writ petition filed by the petitioner was decided and petitioner was required to file a fresh representation / pending representation of the petitioner was to be decided, the same has rightly been decided by the respondents by way of a speaking order, which does not call for any interference.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the order dated 26.10.2018 (Annex.6) would reveal that the order essentially was interim in nature as it was specifically indicated therein that the same would remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

Once in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, order dated 25.07.2019 was passed directing decision on the fresh / pending representation, it cannot be said that the respondents committed any mistake in deciding the representation.

A look at the disposal of the representation made by the petitioner indicates that the respondents have taken into consideration all the aspects as raised by the petitioner and it cannot be said that the same is in any manner arbitrary and/or incorrect.

In view of the above fact situation, once the pending representation made by the petitioner has been decided pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2019, it cannot be said that the respondents committed any error.

In view of the above discussions, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.