Rajasthan High Court
Vineeta Bairwa D/O Bhanwar Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 July, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3868/2021
Vineeta Bairwa D/o Bhanwar Lal Bairwa, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village And Post Baler Tehsil Khandar District
Sawaimadhopur (Raj) Presently Working On The Post Of Patwari
At Patwar Mandal Lahsoda Swaimadhopur District
Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Revenue Group-I), Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat
Jaipur.
2. The Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
3. The District Collector (Land Records), Sawai Madhopur ,
District Sawai Madhopur.
4. Tehsildar, Land Record, Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Ms. Vandana
Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, GC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
16/07/2021
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:-
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed and, by an
appropriate writ order or direction
A. The order dated 17.03.2021 passed by
Ld.Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal,
Jaipur in appeal no. 1564/2021, may kindly be
quashed and set aside;
B. The appeal filed by the petitioner against her
transfer order dated 24.02.2021 and relieving
order dated 26.02.2021 may kindly be allowed in
(2 of 4) [CW-3868/2021]
toto by quashing orders dated 24.02.2021 and
26.02.2021;
C. The respondents may kindly be directed to
permit the petitioner to work on the post of
Patwari at Patwar Mandal Lehsoda, District Sawai
Madhopur as it is.
D. Any other writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case may kindly be
allowed to petitioner;
E. Costs of the petition may be awarded to the
petitioner."
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while
working as Patwari has been transferred from Patwar Mandal
Lehsoda, District Sawaimadhopur to Leave Reserve Patwari at
Tehsil Bamanwas vide order dated 26.02.2021. Counsel further
submits that only a single order has been passed by the
respondents transferring the petitioner from one place to the
other, which in itself shows that the transfer of the petitioner is
not due to administrative exigency but it has been given effect to
in a mala-fide manner, just to harass the petitioner. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner has also made complaints
against certain officers.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that
the transfer order of the petitioner has been passed in the
administrative exigency and the petitioner who is a government
employee cannot claim to serve at a particular place. Counsel
further submits that looking to the fact that the petitioner is a
widow lady, adjusting her, she has been transferred within the
district itself.
4. In support of the contentions counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Union of India and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and
(3 of 4) [CW-3868/2021]
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 order of
transfer is disquieting. We express our
disapproval".
(4 of 4) [CW-3868/2021]
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner who is a
government servant cannot claim to serve at a particular place;
secondly, although the petitioner has levelled the allegation of
mala-fide against the respondents but no person has been
impleaded by her as party respondent in this writ petition; thirdly,
in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not
inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands
dismissed. The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of
salary if any to the petitioner.
8. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/65
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
