Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19238 (RAJ)

SONU JANGID W/O MUKESH KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/7734/2025 · 2025-05-20

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:21157] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7734/2025 Sonu Jangid W/o Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ward No. 25, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. Presently Working As Nursing Officer, Government Ajeet Sub- District Hospital Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Employee Id- RJJJ201623008939) ----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. Medical Officer, Government Ajeet Sub- District Hospital, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 5. Kusum Lata, Nursing Officer, Phc Sawasa, Division Lalsot, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Mishra For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 20/05/2025 1. Petitioner has filed instant writ petition, feeling aggrieved by her transfer order dated 15.01.2025 whereby she has been transferred on the post of Government Sub District Hospital, Khetri, Jhunjhunu to PHC Sawasa, Division Lalsot, Dausa. 2. Petitioner preferred an appeal, assailing the transfer order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and on her own request, appeal was decided with liberty to submit a [2025:RJ-JP:21157] (2 of 2) [CW-7734/2025] representation by the petitioner with direction that same shall be decided within a period of two weeks. 3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order granting liberty to the petitioner to submit the representation was passed by the Tribunal on the concession of petitioner, hence, in such circumstances, petitioner is estopped from assailing the transfer order or the order of the Tribunal on merits and the writ petition is wholly misconceived, which deserves to be dismissed with cost. 4. Counsel for petitioner, after arguing the writ petition for some time, having instructions from the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the same. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /12