High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 04 RAJ CK 0109

Diwar Chand Morya vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 9 April 2012 · Citation: (2012) 2 WLN 533

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dinesh Maheshwari, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 4381 of 2008.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 379 words

Dinesh Maheshwari

1.

In this writ petition, the petitioner, who has been working on the post of Class IV employee, has questioned his transfer order dated 28.06.2008 passed by the Director, Local Self, Rajasthan, Jaipur as being not bona fide and being prejudicial to him in his service conditions. On 09.07.2008, this Court issued show cause notices and stayed the operation and effect of the impugned order 28.06.2008 subject to the condition that the stay order will not be operative if Rajendra Dave, the respondent No. 4, had already joined at Municipal Board, Kuchaman City before service of the order upon the Executive Officer, Municipl Board, Kuchaman City.

2.

Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instructions that the said respondent No. 4 had not joined at Municipal Board, Kuchaman City and the petitioner continued thereat per the force of the interim order. The learned counsel, however, submits that at the time of filing this petition, the petitioner was within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk; but he is not aware about the present status.

3.

So far any other subsequent event is concerned, obviously, that shall have no bearing on the subject matter of this writ petition. So far the impugned order dated 28.06.2008 qua the present petitioner is concerned, with efflux of time, the same could only be considered as redundant and having already lost its efficacy. It does not appear necessary to take up for adjudication any of the issues sought to be raised by the parties in this matter; and it appears in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice that the said impugned order dated 28.06.2008 be annulled qua the present petitioner subject to the observations that annulment of the impugned order shall not be of any prejudice to either of the parties. In other words, the respondents shall be free to pass the fresh appropriate transfer/posting orders regarding the petitioner in case so necessary, but strictly in accordance with law and in that relation too, it shall be open for all the concerned to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. No costs.