Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20311 (RAJ)

KAVITA BHASKAR DAUGHTER OF SHRI ARJUN SINGH BHASKAR, WIFE OF SHRI GANGADHAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/8271/2025 · 2025-05-27

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:22206] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8271/2025 Kavita Bhaskar Daughter Of Shri Arjun Singh Bhaskar, Wife Of Shri Gangadhar, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Piprali, District Sikar (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Director (Non Gazzattee), Medical And Health Services And Additional Director (Administration), Panchyatiraj (Medical) Department, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Additional Director (Administration), Department Of Medical And Health Service, Rajasthan, Medical Directorate, Jaipur. 4. Medical Superintendent, Shri Kalyan Government Medical College, Sikar (Raj.) 5. Manju Kumari, Nursing Officer, Shri Kalyan Government Medical College, Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Sepat for Ms. Komal Kumari Giri For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 27/05/2025 1. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of the High Court, in order to assail her transfer order as Medical Officer from Shri Kalyan Hospital, Sikar to Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur vice respondent No.5. 2. A challenge was made by the petitioner to the impugned transfer order by way of filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which has been decided vide order dated 05.03.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to submit a Representation before the respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:22206] (2 of 2) [CW-8271/2025] 3. This Court finds that challenge was made to the transfer order raising some family adversarial circumstances of the petitioner and on the concession of counsel for petitioner, appeal was not decided to submit a Representation, hence in such backdrop of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner is estopped to further challenge the transfer order on merits, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. However, counsel for petitioner, having instructions from petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, in order to pursue the remedy to submit a Representation, which has already been granted to the petitioner by the Tribunal. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/17