Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17289 (RAJ)

GEETA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI THAWARMAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/7073/2025 · 2025-05-08

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:19515] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7073/2025 Geeta Devi Wife Of Shri Thawarmal, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Village Tateeja, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Services Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 4. Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Block Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 5. Medical Officer, P.H.C., Jasrapur, Block Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 6. Anju Kumari, Anm, Government District Hospital, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surya Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 08/05/2025 1. Petitioner challenged her transfer order dated 15.01.2025 whereby she, as ANM, was transferred from Khetdi to Rajsamand by way of filing appeal No.1491/2025 before the Tribunal, fundamentally on the ground that petitioner’s husband, as Senior Teacher, is posted in district Jhunjhunu, hence as per the Government Policy, husband and wife should be posted at one [2025:RJ-JP:19515] (2 of 2) [CW-7073/2025] place, however the Tribunal has considered such ground on merits and does not find favour to petitioner yet the Tribunal has granted liberty to petitioner to submit a representation before the respondents, which has been directed to be decided within a period of 30 days. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, representation has already been submitted, which is under consideration. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the writ petition and having instructions from the petitioner, does not press the instant writ petition and seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. 4. Permission is granted. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/13