S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) BY this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the petitioner -appellant has questioned the correctness of the order dated July 30, 1971 of a Learned Single Judge of this Court, by which, he declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed it summarily. The facts leading to this appeal any briefly be noticed.
(2.) THE petitioner -appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') held the past of Agriculture Extension Officer in the Agriculture Department. While holding that post, he was sent on deputation to the Development Department as Vikas Adhikari. By order (Ex. 12) dated April 2, 1971 of the State Government, he was transferred as Vikas Adhikari, Ahore, with immediate effect. He did not join that post. Subsequently, by order (Ex. 17) dated Jone 15, 1971 in supersession of the order (Ex. 12) dated April 2, 1971, the petitioner was revarted to the Agriculture Department with immediate effect. On receipt of the order (Ex. 17) dated June 15, 1971, the Director of the Agriculture Department by his order (Ex. 18) dated July 12, 1971 posted him as Agriculture Extention Officer with immediate effect. Therefter, the petitioner filed the writ petition on July 27, 1971 and prayed for the following reliefs. a) That by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Order dated 15 -6 -71 (Ex. 17) passed by the Dy. Secretary to the Govt. cancelling the order of deputation of the Petitioner and the Order dt. 12 -7 -71 (Ex. 18) posting him as Agriculture Extension Officer, Shahpura, may be quashed; b) That by an appropriate writ, order or direction. Respondents may be directed to immediately make the payment of the salary of the petitioner due upto date; c) Further by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Order of transfer of the petitioner dated 2 -4 -71 (Ex. 12) may be quashed and the Respondents may be restrained from giving effect to the same qua the petitioner. If for any reason, the transfer has been given effect to during this period, the Order itself may be recalled and the Respondents may be directed to repost the petitioner as Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nimbahera; d) Further by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondents may be directed to re -fix the salary of the petitioner by taking into account from the Order of confirmation dt. 22 -4 -71 with effect from 7 -2 -62, confirming the petitioner as Agriculture Extension Officer; e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which the petitioner may be entitled to may be granted ; f) Costs of this writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner. The learned single Judge by his order dated July 30, 1971 declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it summarily holding that it was not shown that the petitioner had made a demand for justice and it was met with refusal. Hence this appeal by the petitioner as aforesaid. We have heard Mr. M. Mridul, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. H.N. Calla, learned Additional Government Advocate.
(3.) MR . M. Mridul. learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before us: (1) that it is factually wrong that there was no demand for just ice and that a demand for justice was made as is clear from the representations dated 2 -7 -1971 and 14 -7 -1971 which have been reproduced with writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the representations and requests were equivalent to the making of a demand for the reliefs ; and (2) that the petitioner has not claimed purely a writ of mandamus, for which, the demand for justice is necessary and having regard to reliefs asked for by him, no demand for justice was at all necessary. On the other had, Mr. H.N. Calla., learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order under appeal. The argument of M. H.M, Calla, learned Additional Government Advocate is that the representation dated July 14, 1971 was sent to the Director, Panchayat and Development Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and not to the Director Agriculture Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and as no demand for justice was made by the petitioner to the parent department and as he has made a demand for justice to the Director, Panchayat and Development Department where he was on deputation, it was not a demand for justice in the eye of law. ;