[2026:RJ-JP:12022] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5210/2026 Rajkumar S/o Shri Jagmohan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village And Post Bibasar Via Nuwan District Jhunjhunu. Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The District Education Officer, (Head Quarter) Secondary Education, Jhunjhunu. 3. The Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Doomara District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manik Kaswan with Mr. Vishal Kumar & Ms. Pooja Sharma on behalf of Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/03/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 13.03.2026 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, (for short, 'Tribunal'), with the contention that although after recording all the contents of the appeal and the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal, findings have been given by the Tribunal, yet only notices were issued and no stay order was granted, despite the fact that the petitioner was having prima facie case in his favour. [2026:RJ-JP:12022] (2 of 4) [CW-5210/2026] 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 26.02.2026 was issued by the District Education Officer, (Headquarter) Secondary Education, Jhunjhunu,, whereby mentioning administrative reasons, the petitioner was kept awaiting posting order and was directed to report in the Office of Chief Block Education Officer, Integrated Education, Buhana, Jhunjhunu. 3. Such order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Appeal No.844/2026 before the Tribunal on the ground that the order of keeping the petitioner APO dated 26.02.2026 is in direct violation of Rule 25A of Rajasthan Services Rules (for short, 'RSR'), where the State Government can exercise powers of keeping an employee awaiting posting order on the limited grounds as prescribed under the Rules. In the instant case, as there was general ban on transfers imposed by the State Government, in order to defeat the ban orders, in the garb of issuing order for keeping petitioner APO, virtually an attempt has been made to transfer the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have adopted such indirect practice to flout the order of general ban and during such period, instead of passing direct transfer orders, firstly an employee is kept awaiting posting order and later on by way of issuing a posting order, he is posted at another place. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the similar circumstances and with the similar allegations, when the other person approached the Tribunal by way of filing Appeals No.839/2026, 739/2026, 203/2026, 5129/2025, 546/2026 & [2026:RJ-JP:12022] (3 of 4) [CW-5210/2026] 149/2026, while recording the sole reason that the order of APO has been issued in violation of Rule 25A of RSR, the Tribunal has granted stay in favour of respective appellants, but in the case of the petitioner, stay has not been granted, which is apparently a discriminatory treatment with the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10490/2024 (Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), where the similar order has been held to be against the provisions of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10962/2015 (Dhoolchand Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), where also Co-ordinate Bench took note of different and inconsistent orders in similar set of facts and directions were given to the Tribunal to grant similar treatment in similar facts. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending before the Tribunal and is yet to be finally decided, therefore, at this stage, writ petition filed by the petitioner may not be entertained. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. In ordinary circumstances, at the stage, when notices have been issued by the Tribunal, this Court does not entertain the writ petition and would always be slow to interfere at such an interim stage, however, in view of the facts narrated by the [2026:RJ-JP:12022] (4 of 4) [CW-5210/2026] petitioner, where different orders have been passed by the Tribunal in almost similar facts, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with direction to the Tribunal to decide the Appeal No.844/2026 filed by the petitioner along with other appeals, as referred hereinabove, and till the decision of the appeal, operation of order dated 26.02.2026 shall remain stayed. 11. Looking the nature of the dispute, learned Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal finally in expeditious manner. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. 13. Pending application, if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/31