1 SBCW NO.4109/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Aruna Solanki Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4109/2008 Date of Order : : 18/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Harish Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. G.R.Kalla, Govt. Counsel for respondents. Mr. N.R.Choudhary, for the applicant. BY THE COURT: By an application being I.A. No. 2411/2009, applicant Usha Choudhary seeks to implead as party respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not seeking cancellation of transfer of Usha Choudhary applicant. What the case of the petitioner is that the 2 SBCW NO.4109/2008 petitioner in pursuance of the transfer order Annex.2 was relieved vide Annex.3 and joined at the transferred place vide Annex.4 and after joining the transfer order stands executed and therefore, it was not open for the respondents to have directed the petitioner to join at Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Dhorimanna, District Barmer, it could have been by a fresh transfer order but not by the order like order Annex.1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner is not seeking any relief against the applicant, therefore, she is not a necessary party in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the ultimate consequence which is likely to be that if the order transferring the petitioner Annex.2 stands then the applicant is likely to be dislodged who stands transferred vide Annex.1. In my view, the contention of the counsel for the applicant is mere apprehension. The consequence cannot be what has been suggested by the counsel for the applicant. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to implead applicant Usha Choudhary as respondent in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The application is therefore, dismissed. With the consent of learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State, the writ 3 SBCW NO.4109/2008 petition is finally heard and decided at this stage. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order annex.1 directing the petitioner to join at Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Dhorimanna. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was transferred from Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Antari Devi, Barmer to Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Barmer by order Annex.2 dated 14.06.2008 and in pursuance of the transfer order Annex.2 she came to be relieved by order Annex.3 on 19.6.2008 and by Annex.4 she has joined at new place of transfer on 20.6.2008 and has been continuing there and thereafter abruptly the order dated 26.6.2008 Annex.1 impugned came to be passed. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Kalu Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2003 (1) WLC (Raj.), 674 wherein this Court relying on earlier decision in Gangaram Bishnoi Vs. State and Ors. reported in WLR 1994 Raj. 537 held that the law has been settled and applying the law laid down in the case of Ganga Ram Bishnoi (supra), this Court observed that since the order dated 25.7.2002 (Annex.1) has been complied with by the petitioner on 27.7.2002 (Annex.3) by joining at Jetpur, therefore, issuance of order dt. 29.7.2002 (Annex.4) by which previous order of transfer was cancelled is illegal. The 4 SBCW NO.4109/2008 controversy involved in the instant case stands concluded by catena of decisions of this Court. In this view of the matter, the order impugned Annex.1 directing the petitioner to join at Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Dhorimanna cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned Annex.1 dated 26.6.08 qua the petitioner directing her to join at Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Dhorimanna passed by the respondent District Education Officer, Secondary, Barmer is quashed. However, it is made clear that the respondents would be free to transfer the petitioner again if administrative exigency so exists. No order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp 5 SBCW NO.4109/2008 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 7454/08 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4109/08 Date of order : 18/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Harish Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr. G.R.Kalla, Govt. Counsel for respondents. Mr. N.R.Choudhary, for the applicant. Since the writ petition itself has been allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp