[2025:RJ-JP:1312-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 717/2024 In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14883/2024 Suraj Puri Son of Prabhu Puri, aged about 35 years, Resident of 5, Rajput Colony, Keshavpura, Kota (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Zonal Chief Engineer (KZ) Jaipur Discom, Kota, Old Power House, Khal Road, Nayapura Kota (Raj.). 3. Deputy Director Personnel (KZ) Jaipur Discom, Kota. 4. Chief Personnel Office, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur. 5. Personnel Officer (Tech Establishment), Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kashyap Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 09/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. The order passed by the learned Single judge in the case of the appellant is assailed mainly on the ground that the respondents in their reply did not state that prior approval of the Managing Director concerned was obtained. [2025:RJ-JP:1312-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-717/2024] 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the appellant being an office bearer was protected under the settlement. 4. Firstly, in the writ petition filed by the appellant, there is no averment that prior approval of the Managing Director was obtained, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents, while filing reply in the writ petition filed by the appellant, to make any rebuttal on this aspect. In any case, in the case of another petitioner Vishnu Sharma, this ground was taken to which reply was filed by the respondents stating that prior approval of the Managing Director was obtained and on this basis, learned Single Judge recorded a finding which does not warrant any interference. 5. Though the appellant had not taken any ground in the writ petition that the transfer was in violation of any settlement, while filing present appeal, a new ground is sought to be added, which is not permissible. 6. No case for interference is made out. 7. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Application No.1/2024 also stands dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI-YOGESH /9