[2026:RJ-JP:11421] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4866/2026 Peetam Singh Meena S/o. Shri Nahne Ram Meena, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. 56. Rahrai, Dholpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner And Additional District Project Director (Senior), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (Smsa), Bikaner. 3. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 4. Chief Block Education Officer, Block Sarmathura, District Dholpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manik Kaswan on behalf of Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/03/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against transfer order dated 10.01.2026 has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner while assailing transfer order contended that vide order dated 25.08.2023, the petitioner was sent on deputation for one year under Rule 144-A of the Rajasthan Service [2026:RJ-JP:11421] (2 of 3) [CW-4866/2026] Rules as reference person on the post of Chief Block Education Officer, Block Sarmathura, District Dholpur, Rajasthan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the deputation was initially for one year, however, it was extendable upto four years and since even after completion of period of one year, no order for repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department was passed therefore, it would be correct to presume that the period of one year has been tacitly extended by the competent authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while the petitioner was on deputation, without firstly passing order of repatriation and without there being any relieving order by the Authority, where the petitioner has been sent on deputation, the transfer order could not have been issued. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any specific order, whereby deputation of the petitioner, after expiry of initial period of one year, was ever extended by the Competent Authority. Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that no employee has got vested right to continue on deputation and the Authority in the parent department, at any point of time can pass order for calling back its employee. Merely, for the reason that no order for repatriation or for calling back the petitioner has been passed, it does not restrain the parent department from issuing the transfer order, which has admittedly been issued after expiry of around two and a half years from the date of initial deputation order. [2026:RJ-JP:11421] (3 of 3) [CW-4866/2026] 7. As regards, grievance of the petitioner that without relieving by the Chief Block Education Officer, Block Sarmathura, District-Dholpur, he cannot join pursuant to transfer order, it is suffice to observe that when the transfer order has been issued by Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, which is Higher Authority to Chief Block Education Officer, hence, the Chief Block Education Officer is bound to relieve the petitioner in accordance with Rules. 8. There is no scope of interference either in the order of transfer or in the order passed by the learned Tribunal, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is hereby, dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/10