Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions, essentially relating to the same subject matter, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order. The relevant facts and the background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner, holding the post of Accountant and posted in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Churu ('the DTO, Churu'), came to be transferred to the office of Panchayat Samiti, Churu by the order dated 22.12.2011. By the same order, the respondent No.3, holding the post of Junior Accountant, was posted in the office of the DTO, Churu in place of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur ('the Tribunal'), being Appeal No.1449/2011, seeking to challenge the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2011 and also prayed for interim relief. On the prayer for interim relief, the Tribunal considered the matter on 25.01.2012 and passed an ex -parte stay order to the effect that if the appellant had not joined pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.12.2011, its operation shall remain stayed until further orders.
(2.) IT appears from the material placed on record that pursuant to the said order dated 22.12.2011, the respondent No.3 had submitted his joining in the office of the DTO, Churu on 28.12.2011; and the DTO, Churu issued an order on 19.01.2012 relieving the petitioner for joining in the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Churu. As noticed, the petitioner had preferred the appeal that was considered on 25.01.2012 and conditional interim order was passed staying the operation of the order impugned. Upon receipt of this stay order dated 25.01.2012, the DTO, Churu purportedly relieved the respondent No.3 by the order dated 02.02.2012 for his joining in the office of the Assistant Director, Agricultural Department, Chidawa, Jhunjhunu pursuant to an earlier order of posting dated 25.10.2011. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No. 159/2012; and also submitted his reply in the appeal as filed by the present petitioner. The Tribunal considered the question of interim relief in both the appeals on 26.03.2012 and passed separate orders vacating the interim order as passed in the appeal filed by the present petitioner; and granting an interim order in the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 to the effect that the operation of the order dated 02.02.2012 would remain stayed if the appellant (i.e., the respondent No.3 herein) had not joined pursuant thereto. The orders so passed in the two appeals are sought to be questioned in these writ petitions.
(3.) IT is contended that posting the respondent No.3, holding the post of Junior Accountant, on the post of Accountant remains entirely improper; that posting the respondent No. 3 in the office of DTO, Churu has been wholly illegal and unwarranted, particularly when earlier, the Director himself pointed out various reasons including the disciplinary proceedings and punishment orders against the respondent No.3 for not posting him in the transport department dealing with substantial revenue. It is also submitted that impugned order dated 22.12.2011 had been passed only in order to accommodate the respondent No.3 and hence, calls for interference.;