High CourtsDivision Bench(2020) 02 RAJ CK 0342

Ramchandra Swami vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 19 February 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sangeet Lodha, J · Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 155 Of 2020

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

19 paragraphs · 376 words

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

1.

This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner claiming the following relief:

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this Special Appeal of the Appellant-petitioner may kindly be allowed and the order dated

21.10.2019 (Annex.A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11976/2019 in the name of Ramchandra Swami Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors., may kindly be quashed and set aside and the prayers made inter alia in the writ petition may kindly be allowedâ€​

2.

Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the appellant/writ petitioner was working on the post of Teacher Grade III Level I in

Government Senior Secondary School, Sevgo Ki Bagechi, Nathusar Gate, Bikaner, from where he was transferred to Government Senior Secondary

School, Toliyasar, Shri Dungargarh, and the private respondent No.4 was transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Toliyasar, Shri

Dungargarh to Government Senior Secondary School, Sevgo Ki Bagechi, Nathusar Gate, Bikaner, which is vice versa.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the private respondent No.4 being transferred in place of the present

appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to work in the secondary set up, and therefore, his transfer has to be cancelled, and the appellant/writ

petitioner’s transfer, which was made to adjust the respondent No.4, has to be cancelled.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner as well as perused the record of the case.

5.

The learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue of the transfer of respondent No.4 in the secondary set up, but even if the transfer of respondent

No.4 was erroneous, then also it would not give any independent right to the appellant/writ petitioner to challenge his own transfer, as transfers are

merely exchange of places, which is an administrative exercise. Moreover, in regard to such an exercise in the present case, conducted in the right set

up, no illegality whatsoever has been pointed out by the appellant/writ petitioner qua his transfer.

6.

In view of the above, there is no reason made out to make any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7.

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.