Virendra Singh Yadav S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3066/2021

Virendra Singh Yadav S/o Shri Parasram Yadav, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Post Aklimpur, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
       Department Of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Director Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.     District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Alwar,
       Rajasthan.
4.     Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Kayasa,
       Teh. Behror, Alwar.
5.     Nihal   Singh      Choreriya,         Lecturer           Political   Science,
       Government Senior Secondary School Ghatol, District
       Banswara.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     None
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 01/07/2022 On 25.05.2022, this Court passed the following order;

"None present on behalf of the petitioner.

However, in the interest of justice, list this writ petition on 27.06.2022."

Today also none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 07.02.2021. (Downloaded on 05/07/2022 at 09:35:54 PM)

                                           (2 of 4)                     [CW-3066/2021]


     Learned      AAG    submits        that     the      petitioner     has   been

transferred within the same district and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard counsel for the respondent(s) and perused the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 has held as under:-

"3.The High Court, in interfering with the order of transfer, has relied on two circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a result of the stay on the order of transfer, the headquarters of the respondent will remain at Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his headquarters will continue to remain at Mumbai. The second reason, which was weighed with the High Court, is that the spouse of the respondent suffers from a cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of these reasons can furnish a valid justification for the High Court to take recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in passing an order of injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer was either mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court could not have dictated to the employer as to where the respondent should be posted during the period of suspension. Individual hardships are matters for the Union of India, as an employer, to take a dispassionate view.

4.However, we are categorically of the view that the impugned order of the High Court interfering with the order of transfer was in excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise of judicial power. We are constrained to observe that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the settled principles and precedents which have consistently been enunciated and followed by this Court. The manner in which judicial power has been exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful (Downloaded on 05/07/2022 at 09:35:54 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-3066/2021] order of transfer is disquieting. We express our disapproval".

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 178, where in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10, it has been held as under:-

"8. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal; SCC P.406 para 7).

9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar & Ors.1, this Court held : (SCC p.661, para 4) "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other.

Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to- day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public (Downloaded on 05/07/2022 at 09:35:54 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-3066/2021] interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders."

10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India, this Court reiterated that : (SCC p. 103; para 6) "6. ... the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides or violation of any specific provision...."

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner who is a Government employee, cannot claim to serve at a particular place of his choice; secondly, the petitioner has been transferred by the respondents within the same district; thirdly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India & Rajendra Singh (both supra), I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article- 226 of the Constitution of India.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed.

All the pending applications stand disposed of.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J CHETNA BEHRANI /302 (Downloaded on 05/07/2022 at 09:35:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)