ATUL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the impugned transfer order 15 th March, 2017;the petitioner has instituted the instant writ application assailing it to be an outcome of malice in law, on account of institution of writ proceedings by the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Ashok Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, submits that the impugned order of transfer suffers with the vice of malice in law, as can be gathered from the attendant facts for the petitioner instituted SBCWP Number 263 of 2017: Manish Mathur and Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors., with reference to claim of the petitioner along with others therein, praying for recruitment to the posts of Inspector, 100% by way of promotion stead of 75% by way of promotion and 25% by way of direct recruitment as per the statutory rules. Learned counsel further submits that the matter is under active consideration of the State-respondents in that regard and there is a proposal for amendment in the recruitment rules. However, the State- respondents proceeded with the process of recruitment on the basis of statutory rules in force, and therefore, the petitioner instituted the writ application aforesaid whereupon notices were issued by this Court on 3rd March, 2017. So soon, the State- respondents were served with the notices; the impugned order of transfer dated 5th March, 2017, has been made. Thus, malice in law is apparent on the face of record.

(3.) In response to the notice of the writ application, the State- respondents have filed their counter affidavit specifically denying the allegations of malice in law and/or fact. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Addl.G.C., appearing for the State-respondents urged that the writ application number 263 of 2017, has been instituted by the petitioner along with four others, namely, Manish Mathur, Kedar Nath Sharma, Sudhir Choudhary and Harchand Singh Palsania; hence, the presumptions and assumptions of malice in law, raised by the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of transfer; are contrary to the materials available on record so also the factual matrix obtaining.