MOHAMMED SADIQ SON OF SHRI RAEES AHMED v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/10261/2025 · 2025-07-11
Sudesh Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23920 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23920 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:25682] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10261/2025 Mohammed Sadiq Son Of Shri Raees Ahmed, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of House No. - 67, Aakashwani Colony, Nayapura, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Joint Secretary (Gr.-2), Medical And Health Department, Jaipur.
3. Director (Arajpatrit), Medical And Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Rekha Raigar, Nursing Officer, Zila Chikitsalaya, Kunhadi, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 11/07/2025
1. By way of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought to challenge her transfer order dated 15.01.2025 as Nursing Officer from Zila Chikitsalaya, Kunhadi, Kota to Mahatma Gandhi Chikitsalaya, Jodhpur as also the consequential order dated 30.06.2025 whereby and whereunder the representation filed against the transfer of petitioner from Zila Chikitsalaya, Kunhadi, Kota to Mahatma Gandhi Chikitsalaya, Jodhpur, was rejected.
2. Undisputedly, the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing appeal before the
[2025:RJ-JP:25682] (2 of 2) [CW-10261/2025] Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Learned Tribunal having considered the grievances of petitioner, did not interfere with the transfer order and permitted the petitioner to submit a Representation. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2025. In pursuance thereof, petitioner has submitted a Representation, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.06.2025.
3. After arguing the writ petition for some time, counsel for petitioner does not press the writ petition.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not press.
5. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/9