MRS. SANGEETA MEENA WIFE OF RAMJILAL MEENA v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT
CW/3238/2025 · 2025-03-18
Sameer Jain
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9539 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9539 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:11939] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3238/2025 Mrs. Sangeeta Meena Wife Of Ramjilal Meena, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Bilota Tehsil Uniara District Tonk Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus
1. Principal Secretary Government, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Mastram Meena Agriculture Supervisor, Mu. Kakrava Office Assistant Director Agriculture Extension, Rajsamand ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Gupta For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order 18/03/2025
1. The present petition is filed assailing the impugned transfer
order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the respondents and the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 whereby the learned RAT without considering the facts and circumstances of the case has dismissed the appeal bearing No.874/2025, preferred by the petitioner/applicant.
2. Heard and considered and perused the material placed on record.
3. Upon considering the aforementioned, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has duly considered the vital
[2025:RJ-JP:11939] (2 of 2) [CW-3238/2025] aspects of the present matter and has passed a detailed order. Nevertheless, it is settled position of law that transfers are incidence of service and cannot be avoided. Accordingly, reliance is ought to be placed upon the ratios encapsulated in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 and Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178. Thence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter. For the sake of convenience, the opinion spelled out in the order dated 11.02.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal is reproduced herein below: ^^vr% ge ikrs gS fd vihykFkhZ dk LFkkukarj.k vkns’k l{ke vf/kdkjh Lrj ij vuqeksfnr gSA ,sls esa ge vihykFkhZ ds vkyksP; vkns’k esa jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt ¼varfjr fdz;kdyki½ fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 8¼iii½ mYya?ku gksuk ugha ikrs gSA bl laca/k esa gekjk er gS fd vihykFkhZ ds LFkkukarj.k esa fdlh izdkj dh nqHkkZouk jgh gks] ;g izdV ugha gksrk gSA ;g fu;ksDrk ds foosd ij fuHkZj djrk gS fd og iz’kklfud vko’;drk esa vius fdl dkfeZd dh lsok,a fdl LFkku ij ysuk mfpr le>rk gSA ,sls iz’kklfud vkns’k esa bl vf/kdj.k }kjk gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA**
4. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/135