1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4275/2002. : : Kishan Chand Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 28.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. R.P.Garg for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner as Head Master w.e.f. 16.8.1995 pursuant to his earlier promotion order dated 31.7.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even though promotion order was passed on 31.7.1995, but the petitioner was never informed about the promotion order and it was for the first time on 15.8.1995 the Principal disclosed the order of promotion. He requested to the Principal for relieving him to join at the place of promotion and Principal relieved him, but at that time due to flood in the area, where the petitioner was required to join, the 2 petitioner could not join. He immediately informed the Collector, but he asked to report the matter to the Tehsildar, who is controlling authority for flood situation. Learned counsel referred to certificate issued by Officer Incharge/ Flood Control Cell, Deeg dated 29.8.1995 and argued that this certifies that the area in question was having flood situation on 16.8.1995. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was required to join within 15 days and apart from sending the order, a telegram was also sent on 31.7.1995. Copy of the telegram is placed on record. The petitioner however willfully waived the promotion. Learned counsel referred to application submitted by the petitioner on 16.8.1995, indicating that the petitioner did not want to join at the place of posting and insisted for change of place of posting and extending time of joining. Learned counsel , therefore, argued that this fact has been concealed by the petitioner. In view of the stand taken by the respondents and also the written application of the petitioner dated 16.8.1995 insisting for change of place of posting and extending time of joining, the story of the petitioner does not inspire confidence when the petitioner on his own did not 3 want to join at the place of posting and insisted for change of place of posting. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.28.