The Rajasthan High Court has issued detailed guidelines regarding the issuance of "Awaiting Posting Orders" (APOs) under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Justice Arun Monga, while deciding multiple petitions filed by government employees, stressed that placing employees under APOs without stating any reasons violates administrative fairness.
The Court ruled that reasons must be clearly conveyed to the employees, and APOs cannot be used arbitrarily or as hidden disciplinary action.
Read also: Rajasthan High Court Orders State to Regularize Eligible Employees Appointed Since 1979
1. Purpose and Justification of APOs:
- APOs must be based on genuine administrative needs or public interest.
- These orders cannot serve as a punishment or a backdoor method for disciplinary action.
- “The reason for placing an employee under APO must be explicitly stated in writing.”
2. Conditions for Issuing APOs:
- APOs should ideally be issued under Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
- Although Rule 25-A provides illustrative situations, any other reason must align with similar administrative necessity.
3. Limitations and Restrictions:
- APOs must not be used to avoid the due process under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, which deals with suspensions.
- The Court emphasized:
“APO orders should not exceed 30 days unless extended with valid justification and approval from the Finance Department.” - Prolonged APOs without clear cause amount to misuse of power.
4. Administrative Responsibility:
- The issuing authority must inform the employee about the reason for the APO.
- Timely posting orders must follow to avoid unnecessary financial strain on the state.
- “If APO orders become a method of indirect suspension or a delay tactic for disciplinary proceedings, they are to be avoided,” the Court stated.
Background of the Case:
The petitioners, mostly civil servants, approached the Court after being placed under APOs abruptly, despite having commendable service records. They argued that these orders were often passed hastily, possibly due to political interference or mala fide intentions, and without any formal explanation.
The State defended the orders, stating that Rule 25-A allows such APOs for public interest. However, the Court observed that issuing APOs without conveying reasons is not acceptable.
Justice Monga examined whether APOs are being misused as substitutes for suspension or transfer:
“Can Rule 25-A be used to avoid placing an official under suspension by simply issuing an APO?”
“Is placing an employee under APO a way to bypass Rule 13 of the 1958 Rules or evade transfer restrictions?”
Answering these, the Court made it clear that APOs cannot be a cover-up mechanism for actions that should follow proper legal procedure.
Title: Ganraj Bishnoi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
