MUKULIKA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has not taken into account the fact of order of transfer suffering from mala fides as the MLA concerned-respondent No.4 in the writ petition was necessary party for deciding the controversy about the transfer order assailed by the appellants. Learned Counsel submitted that the entire case set up by the appellants was on the basis of mala fides specifically alleged against respondent No.4 and as such, the learned Single Judge ought not to have deleted respondent No.4- MLA from array of respondents. Counsel further submitted that the appellants-petitioner had been transferred only on account of political reasons and since respondent No.4 had decided to contest election and accordingly, she has desired certain persons to be posted in her Constituency and as such the entire transfer order is vitiated and learned Single Judge has not looked into this aspect of the matter.

(2.) Learned Counsel further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge with respect to stay of the appellants in District Jhunjhunu is also not correct.

(3.) Learned Counsel submitted that the main writ petition is still pending and if the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge are still kept as part of record, the petitioner- appellants would not be able to pursue their case properly before the learned Single Judge and as such request is made to make respondent No.4 as party-respondent in the writ petition and further the impugned order is also asked to be set aside by this Court.