VINOD KUMAR KUDI S/O SHRI JODHA RAM JAT v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/9749/2025 · 2025-07-04
Sudesh Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22351 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22351 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:24713] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9749/2025 Vinod Kumar Kudi S/o Shri Jodha Ram Jat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 103-A, Shri Ram Nagar Vistar, 100 Ft Road, Jothwara, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Of Medical Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Medical And Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Principal, Sms Medical Collage, JLN Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kant Agarwal For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 04/07/2025
1. Case of petitioner is that he has been given promotion from the post of Pharmacist to Pharmacist Grade-I and thereafter, despite vacancies available in district Jaipur, petitioner has been posted from SMS Medical College, Jaipur to Sub-Division Hospital, Phulera, Jaipur in the list dated 23.04.2025.
2. Petitioner challenged the transfer order before the Tribunal by way of filing appeal and the appeal of the petitioner was considered along with other appeals, involved identical nature of disputes. All appeals have been decided on merits by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2025.
[2025:RJ-JP:24713] (2 of 2) [CW-9749/2025]
3. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments tried to pursuade the Court that the other persons have been accommodated in Jaipur as per their option and petitioner has been discriminated, yet this Court does not find such ground sufficient to interfere with the transfer order in exercise of its powers of judicial review. More so, in view of the fact that on the post of pharmacist, petitioner has been remained posted in district Jaipur continuously since 2012.
4. After arguing the writ petition on merits, having instructions from the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the same.
5. Permission is granted.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
7. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/18