[2025:RJ-JP:50170] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15009/2025 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health Group-2, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Dr. Hemant Dagar S/o Shri Radhakishan Dagar, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of 1584-A, R.k. Puram, Kota (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Prakhar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/12/2025 1. State has preferred this writ petition aggrieved from order dated 22.08.2025 in appeal no. 3168/2025 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted and order of APO dated 20.06.2025 was set aside and respondent is directed to rejoin at same place where he was posted prior to issuance of order dated 20.06.2025. 2. During course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to order dated 22.08.2025 the petitioner has rejoined at District Khairthal, Tijara on post of RCHO and further he on his own relieved the person working on said post [2025:RJ-JP:50170] (2 of 2) [CW-15009/2025] and issued order dated 01.09.2025. He further submits that the State is at liberty to pass appropriate order of posting of the respondents and with liberty to the State this writ petition be disposed of. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that State is not at liberty to pass any order as it desires rather the Stay application has been disposed of and no stay was granted on order dated 22.08.2025, therefore, if the writ petition is disposed of at this stage then no liberty be granted to the State. 4. Having considered the fact that the petitioner State is an employer and it has all the controlling authority to manage and control the respondent. The impugned order dated 20.06.2025 was found contrary to Rule 25-A and the Tribunal has intervened in the order on this basis only and set aside the order in appeal but State is always at liberty to pass appropriate order, if earlier order has been set aside. If the respondent is aggrieved of any order, passed by the State, it gives a fresh cause of action to him and he is free to challenge such order. 5. Considering aforesaid, there is no ground to intervene in the order dated 22.08.2025 but the petitioner State is at liberty to pass any order. 4. With aforesaid, the writ petition and misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /296