Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13710 (RAJ)

MANJU KUMARI W/O VIJENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJ.

CW/4684/2025 · 2025-05-05

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:18896] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4684/2025 Manju Kumari W/o Vijendra Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 08, Indali, Jhunjhunu, (Raj.) Presently, She Was Working Post As Woman Health Worker (Female) Anm Phc, Rajpura, Block Piparli, Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Raj., Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Rajsthan Government, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. 2. Additional Director (Foundation), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan Jaipur 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sikar, Rajasthan 4. Sonu Meena, C/o- Phc Rajpura, Block Piprali, Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 05/05/2025 1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner to argue the writ petition, hence, the writ petition has been considered on merits as per material available on record. 2. A challenge has been made by the petitioner to the final order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the Appeal No. 997/2025 along with other appeal of identical nature, filed by the petitioner impugning her transfer order dated 15.01.2025 to the post of ANM from PHC [2025:RJ-JP:18896] (2 of 2) [CW-4684/2025] Rajpura, Block Piprali, District Sikar to Sub-Health Center, Sathika, PHC Nasur Block Nokha, Bikaner vice one Sonu Meena. 3. A perusal of the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Tribunal goes to show that since the transfer order was challenged raising personal difficulty and family inconvenience, the appeal was decided on the prayer of counsel for appellant to grant liberty to make a representation before the respondents and accordingly, the Tribunal permitted the appellant to submit representation, therefore, since the order impugned has been with concession of counsel for appellant, same is not amenable to be challenged further. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits, same is hereby dismissed. 5. Stay application and other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /7