Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22221 (RAJ)

POOJA ARORA D/O SHRI TEK CHAND ARORA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/9687/2025 · 2025-07-03

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:24434] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9687/2025 Pooja Arora D/o Shri Tek Chand Arora, R/o 9/13 Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Engineering College, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical, Health And Family Welfare Services, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Service, Rajasthan. 3. Director (Non-Gazettee) (Administration), Panchayati Raj (Medical) Department, Raj. Jaipur. 4. Kusum Lata Panwar, Nursing Officer Rajkiya Up Zila Chikitsalaya Anta, Baran. 5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 03/07/2025 1. Petitioner as medical officer has been transferred from District Kota to District Baran vide transfer order dated 15.01.2025 vice private respondent No.4- Kusum Lata Panwar. 2. Petitioner assailed her transfer order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by way of filing appeal No.709/2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2025 granting liberty to petitioner to submit representation and transfer order of petitioner was stayed for the meanwhile. [2025:RJ-JP:24434] (2 of 2) [CW-9687/2025] 3. The representation submitted by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2025, assigning reasons that the transfer of petitioner was made due to administrative reasons, to provide medical assistance to public, whereagainst the petitioner filed appeal No.2816/2025, which has been dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2025. It is undisputed fact that petitioner is posted in district Kota since 2012 and assailing the transfer order on the ground of family adversarial circumstances. 4. After arguing the writ petition for some time, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of petitioner, does not press this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not press. 6. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/8