Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India which has been filed by the respondent-State and on the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel Mr. V.K. Mathur about maintainability of the writ petition which is supported by the respondent-State also.
(2.) As per the facts stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner herself, the petitioner was posted as a Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bikaner and that was a Grade-A society. The petitioner was transferred vide order dated 1.10.2009 to the post of Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Abu Road and that society was Grade-D society and the petitioner could not have been sent to that lower cadre society. The petitioner challenged the order dated 1.10.2009 by preferring appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which came to be allowed vide order dated 14.10.2009. However, the Tribunal, instead of quashing the order of transfer dated 1.10.2009, stayed the operation of the order dated 1.10.2009 and directed the petitioner to submit representation before the competent authority. The petitioner accepted that order and submitted representation dated 22.10.2009, copy of which has been placed on record. The State Government vide order dated 23.10.2009, accepted the petitioner's plea and cancelled the transfer order dated 1.10.2009. Therefore, the petitioner succeeded in first round and got full relief, may not be from the Tribunal but from the State Government, which is in pursuance of the Tribunal's order dated 14.10.2009, as the petitioner was permitted to submit representation by the Tribunal. On the same day, i.e. on 23.10.2009, another transfer order has been passed by the respondent transferring the petitioner from Bikaner to the post of Assistant Director in the Directorate at Jaipur. The petitioner, now, by way of this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 23.10.2009.
(3.) On 26.10.2009, it was argued that the order dated 23.10.2009 has been passed purporting to be in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal dated 14.10.2009, whereas no such direction was given by the Tribunal to the respondent to transfer the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director in the Directorate at Jaipur. The interim order, therefore, was passed staying the operation of the order dated 23.10.2009.;