Rajasthan High Court
Smt Poonam Yadav vs Director Secondary Educ Andors on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19386/2015
Smt. Poonam Yadav W/o Shri Surendra Singh Yadav, Mohalla
Badhadi, Behror, District - Alwar Raj. Presently Working As
Lecturer School Education Hindi, Govt. Sr. Secondary School,
Giglana Alwar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The Principal Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Majri Kalan,
Alwar.
3. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Through
Its Registrar, Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satyendra Kumar Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
22/07/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the transfer order dated 18.07.2015 whereby the petitioner was
been transferred from Majri Kalan, Alwar to Giglana Alwar.
Counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent(s) have
transferred the petitioner in violation of their own policy dated
30.04.2015, more particularly in violation of clause 5.3 of the said
policy. Counsel further submits that while transferring the
petitioner to another place, the persons junior to the petitioner
have been retained by the respondent(s) in the same school and
prayed for quashing of the transfer order dated 18.07.2015.
(2 of 3) [CW-19386/2015]
Counsel for the respondent(s) submits that in compliance of
the transfer order dated 18.7.2015 the petitioner has already
joined at the new place of posting. Counsel further submits that
the petitioner has been transferred within the same district.
Counsel further submits that this writ petition is pending before
this Court since the year 2015 and no interim order has been
passed by this Court as yet.
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
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
(3 of 3) [CW-19386/2015]
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".
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly; the impugned transfer order
relates to the year 2015 and in my considered view, the
interference at this stage amounts to unsettling the settled
position of the employees in the school, secondly; the employee
has no right to continue at a particular place as has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and
Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. (supra) thirdly,
considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and
so far as clause 5.3 of the policy dated 30.04.2015 is concerned, I
am not inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary discretionary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of
India.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA/174
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
