1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Bodu Ram. Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2970/2005 ... Date of Order: March 22, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Arjun Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annx.12 dated 27-4-2005 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was recalled from Dogs Training School, Tekanpur (M.P.). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that three persons, namely petitioner Bodu Ram, Ramesh Chandra and Nand Kishore, all Constables of Jodhpur Zone, were sent for the training of Dogs Handlers to the Government Officer, B.S.F. Academy, Dogs Training School, Tekanpur (M.P.). However, by the order Annx.12 dated 27-4- 2 2005, the Special Branch, Jaipur informed that there are only two dogs, for which three Dogs Handlers have been sent for training, whereas only two persons are required for two dogs. Keeping this fact in view, the respondent No.3 recalled the petitioners from the training of Dogs Handlers vide order Annx.12 dated 17-4-2005. The order recalling the petitioner as Dog-Handler is totally in administrative nature and cannot be said to have adverse to the service/promotional career of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no right to claim to be a Dog- Handler when appointed on the post of Constable. It is not the case of the petitioner that the post of Dog-Handler is a superior post to the post of Constable. It is within the exclusive domain of the Competent Employer to assign a duty to a particular person of a particular nature. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents came with the case that there had been criminal case No.235/91 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 451and 323 IPC. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 16-12-1991 and on inquiry, a punishment of censure was imposed upon him for the delinquency vide order dated 29-7- 1991. The petitioner remained absent without leave on earlier 3 occasion and for the delinquency, punishment of censure was imposed upon him vide order dated 27-2-1992. A punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was also imposed upon him, which was subsequently reduced to the punishment of censure vide order dated 16-9- 1995. The petitioner again remained absent without leave and was placed under suspension vide order dated 3-8-1996 and on inquiry, the punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed after holding an inquiry under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, “the CCA Rules, 1958” hereinafter) vide order dated 19-5-1996. It also appears that the petitioner again remained absent without leave and on an inquiry under rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958, a punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed against him vide order dated 21-9-2000 and a punishment of censure was thereafter imposed vide order dated 21-9-2001. All these facts clearly go to so the rating of the petitioner as compared to other two persons, namely Ramesh Chandra and Nand Kishore is much low than the person allowed to continue as Dog-Handlers. In this view of the matter, the order Annx.12 dated 27-4-2005 does not suffer from any error or illegality warranting interference in the extraordinary writ 4 jurisdiction. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed summarily. The stay petition also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs