Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11096 (RAJ)

TILLURAM MEENA SON OF SH. RAM SWAROOP MEENA v. DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, RAJASTHAN

WMAP/59/2022 · 2025-07-01

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:24025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 59/2022 In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1010/2020 Tilluram Meena Son Of Sh. Ram Swaroop Meena, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Sainthli Ka Bas (Naya Bas) Post Sainthli, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 2. Deo, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Yadav For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 01/07/2025 1. Instant misc. application has been filed by the applicant- petitioner seeking to recall the order dated 30.01.2020 and to restore S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.1010/2020. 2. Indisputably, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner, impugning his transfer order dated 05.12.2019 from the post of Teacher (Sanskrit) Grade III Level II from Government Middle School, Bilaspur, Ramgarh to Government Upper Primary School, Kaimala, Ramgarh and the transfer order was affirmed by the Tribunal. 3. Counsel for the petitioner withdrew the writ petition before the Coordinate Bench, hence in that view, the writ petition was dismissed as not press vide order dated 30.01.2020. [2025:RJ-JP:24025] (2 of 2) [WMAP-59/2022] 4. Filing of this misc. application, is sheer misuse of process of law for several reasons, since the application has been filed on 11.03.2022 to recall the order dated 30.01.2020 more so, where the impugned transfer order of 2019 has been complied with. 5. This Court is of considered opinion that the misc. application deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost on the petitioner, however counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the application. In that view of matter, this Court refrains to impose the cost upon the petitioner, and the instant application is dismissed as withdrawn. However, petitioner, who is a government servant, is directed not to adopt such malpractice to misuse the process of law. 6. Any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. 7. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned department to take appropriate action against the Government Officer for misusing the judicial process of law, which is unbecoming for a government servant. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/31