Rajasthan High Court: In special appeals challenging the interim orders which stayed the transfer of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited’s (AVVNL) employees, thereby, creating administrative conflict by allowing two employees to hold the same post simultaneously, a Division bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Rekha Borana,* JJ., set aside both the interim orders and directed the AVVNL to issue fresh transfer orders for both employees within two weeks.
The instant matter revolves around a transfer order issued on 22-02-2024 by AVVNL, transferring respondent 4 from Bhilwara to Shahpura and the appellant from Ajmer to Bhilwara. Aggrieved by her transfer, respondent 4 filed a writ petition, arguing that her transfer violated AVVNL’s transfer policy which mandates a minimum two-year tenure before transfer. An interim stay was granted, vide order dated 14-03-2024, halting her transfer. Meanwhile, the appellant had already assumed his position in Bhilwara.
Subsequently, due to respondent 4’s stay, AVVNL issued an order on 24-07-2024 directing the appellant to serve at Ajmer. The appellant challenged this order, filing a writ petition, which resulted in an interim order dated 29-07-2024 allowing him to remain in Bhilwara. AVVNL appealed the interim order dated 29-07-2024 and argued the interim orders forced the department to have two individuals on one post. The appellant also filed a special appeal to set aside an order dated 14-03-2024 issued in favor of the respondent 4 claiming she had concealed facts.
The main issue which arises in the present petition is whether the interim orders, dated 14-03-2024 and 29-07-2024, should be set aside, given that they create administrative conflict by allowing two employees to hold the same post simultaneously. Both appeals arise from the same underlying facts and therefore, are consolidated into a single decision.
The appellant claimed respondent 4 had obtained the interim order by concealing facts and argued that respondent 4 had completed her required tenure, therefore, she is allowed to be transferred. However, AVVNL argued that the interim orders led to two people being assigned the same post, creating administrative complications, therefore, appellant’s interim order is liable to be quashed
The Court observed that the interim orders dated 14-03-2024 and 29-07-2024 resulted in both respondent 4 and the appellant being assigned to the same position. The Court acknowledged that the conflicting interim orders had led to a situation where two individuals were effectively posted to the same position, which was untenable.
To resolve this issue, the Court ordered AVVNL to issue fresh posting orders for both employees within two weeks, thereby nullifying both the previous interim orders. The Court set aside both the interim orders and disposed of both the special appeals.
[Rajan Chechani v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3249, Decided on 22-10-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Rekha Borana
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Naresh Singh, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Vikram Choudhary and Mr. Himanshu Bumb, Counsel for the Respondents
