Years, Resident Of Phed Office, Khand Bayana, Bharatpur v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Public

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Joint Secretary-First, Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Gautam Kumar Son Of Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of 17, Jatav Mohalla, Pichoomar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Emp Id- Rjpg201530011387) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gordhan Singh Fauzdar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 11/07/2025

1. By means of filing instant writ petition, petitioner, an AEN, has impugned the interim order dated 04.07.2025, passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No.3027/2025, staying the order of Awaiting Posting Order (APO) of respondent No.3 dated 02.06.2025 and consequential order of handing over the additional charge of AEN to petitioner dated

02.06.2025.

2. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the material placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:25684] (2 of 5) [CW-10300/2025]

3. Undisputedly, regular posting of petitioner is as AEN in PHED, Division, Bayana District Bharatpur. Respondent No.3 was posted as AEN at PHED Sub-Division Weir, District Bharatpur, however, he was put on APO vide order dated 02.06.2025, hence additional charge of AEN at PHED, Sub-Division Weir was handed over to petitioner on the same date vide separate order dated i.e.

02.06.2025.

4. It appears that respondent No.3 challenged his order of APO dated 02.06.2025, by way of filing Appeal No.3027/2025 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. Since charge of his post of AEN at PHED, Sub-Division Weir, District Bharatpur was handed over to petitioner vide an another order dated 02.06.205, this order was also challenged by the respondent No.3 in his appeal and petitioner was impleaded as party respondent, in the appeal before Tribunal.

5. It appears that petitioner appeared by his own in the appeal filed by respondent No.3 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal heard respondent No.3 as well as petitioner and found that order of APO is prima facie wrong, hence, appeal warrants hearing. Accordingly, Tribunal, vide order dated 04.07.2025, issued notices to the Government and stayed the operation of order of APO of respondent No.3 dated 02.06.2025 so also the consequential order of handing over of additional charge of his post to petitioner

02.06.2025 was also stayed. Against that order of Tribunal dated

04.07.2025, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:25684] (3 of 5) [CW-10300/2025]

6. Undisputedly, appeal filed by respondent No.3 is pending before the Tribunal and yet to be heard on merits wherein petitioner is also party respondent and his contentions shall also be heard by the Tribunal while hearing the appeal on merits.

7. Counsel for petitioner admits that because of the stay order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal, only the additional charge of petitioner from the post of AEN, PHED, Sub-Division Weir, District Bharatpur has been handed over to respondent No.3, who was holding such post of AEN, before passing order of APO. Admittedly, the regular posting of petitioner as AEN at PHED, Division Bayana, District Bhartapur remains unaffected by the stay order, impugned herein.

8. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner assailed the stay order dated 04.07.2025 passed by Tribunal, in favour of respondent No.3 only on the ground that according to him, indeed the appeal before the Tribunal was not filed by respondent No.3- Gautam Kumar, since his signatures on the memorandum of appeal, do not match with his signatures available on the order of handing and taking over of additional charge of the post of AEN, PHED, Sub-Division Weir, District Bharatpur.

9. In the opinion of this Court, such factual dispute, in respect of mismatch of signatures of respondent No.3, was also raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal, which reflects in the impugned order and same is yet to be finally considered and decided by the Tribunal in the appeal of respondent No.3, while hearing the appeal on merits. Such factual issue, cannot be allowed to be raised and decided in the writ jurisdiction. [2025:RJ-JP:25684] (4 of 5) [CW-10300/2025]

10. Moreover, this Court finds that petitioner may not be assumed to have been adversely affected by the interim stay order dated 04.07.2025, passed by the Tribunal in favour of respondent No.3 and does not have any locus standi to file this writ petition. Indeed the main order under challenge in the appeal is the order of APO of respondent No.3 dated 02.06.2025 and petitioner has no concern or say about that order. Another order dated 02.06.2025 through which charge of AEN, PHED, Sub- Division, Weir, District Bharatpur was handed over to petitioner additionally, is merely a consequential order to the main order of APO of respondent No.3. Even if, the additional charge of petitioner from the post of AEN, PHED, Sub-Division Weir, District Bharatpur would be again handed over to respondent No.3, same may not be taken as against the interest of petitioner, since his regular posting as AEN at PHED, Division Bayana, District Bharatpur remains undisturbed at all.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, invoking the writ jurisdiction and filing of instant writ petition, impugning the stay order dated 04.07.2025, by petitioner is nothing but a malicious conduct of petitioner as much as misuse of the jurisdiction of High Court. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed.

12. Before parting with, it is hereby observed that admittedly petitioner is a Government employee and serving on the post of AEN at PHED, Division Bayana, District Bharatpur.

13. A Government employee may not be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of High Court arbitrarily and on his whims, that too [2025:RJ-JP:25684] (5 of 5) [CW-10300/2025] without infringement or threat of infringement of his legal or fundamental rights. Filing of frivolous, vexatious and unwarranted writ petition by a Government employee is a serious matter and such conduct of Government employee tantamounts to an unbecoming conduct of a Government employee as per the Modal Code of Conduct Rules, applicable on every Government employee. Hence, this Court finds it just and proper to saddle the petitioner with cost of Rs.10,000/-, for misusing the jurisdiction of High Court arbitrarily and unwarrantedly. Cost be deposited within a period of four weeks in the name of Registrar General LWFA, Rajasthan High Court, by way of Demand Draft/ Banker's Cheque which shall go in the Litigants Welfare Fund.

14. In addition, Chief Engineer (Admin), Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Headquarter, Jaipur is directed to ensure issuance and service of a charge-sheet to the petitioner, through competent authority, in respect of filing a frivolous and vexatious writ petition in the High Court, by misusing his power and post of AEN, which is an unbecoming conduct of a Government employee.

15. Let the copy of this order be sent to the Chief Engineer (Admin), Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Headquarter, Jaipur, for compliance. Compliance be made within a period of two weeks. RONAK JAIMAN/12 (SUDESH BANSAL),J