Rajasthan High Court

Rajesh Chahar S/O Shri Jagdish ... vs The Union Of India on 25 April, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5851/2021

Rajesh Chahar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Plot No 133, Goverdhan Nagar Bambala Sanganer Jaipur
Rajasthan. At Present Posted As Constable Gd Jaipur Airport
Sanganer Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      The Union Of India, Through The Secretary Home
        Department Government Of India Secretrate New Delhi
        India
2.      The Director General Of Central Industrial Police Force
        (Cisf), C.g.o Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi
3.      The Assistant Inspector General (Establishment), Central
        Industrial Police Force (Cisf) C.g.o Complex Lodhi Road
        New Delhi
4.      The Assistant Commandant Central Industrial Police Force
        (Cisf), Jaipur Port Jaipur Rajasthan
5.      Shri Yogesh Prakash Singh, S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay
        Meena, Aged About 41 Years, Presently Working As
        Commandant/ Caso (Cisf Unit Asg), Jaipur Airport, Post
        Sanganer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

25/04/2022

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the transfer order dated 05.05.2021, whereby the

petitioner has been transferred from ASG Jaipur to Commandant

CISF- Unit 6th RB Deoli.

(2 of 5) [CW-5851/2021]

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been transferred by the respondents from ASG Jaipur to

Commandant CISF- Unit 6th RB Deoli and the said order has been

passed during the mid of academic session. Counsel further

submits that only a single order has been passed by the

respondents transferring the petitioner from one place to the

other. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is suffering from

mental disease and undergone treatment in Jaipur city and the

place where the petitioner has been transferred, there is no

medical facility/hospital available with regard to his mental

disease. Counsel further submits that the wife of the petitioner is

also a government employee, working at Jaipur. Counsel further

submits that the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of the

policy of the respondents and there was no administrative

exigency to transfer the petitioner and he has been transferred in

mala-fide manner.

3. In support of his contention counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Kundan Shrawan Humane Vs. Chairman cum Managing

Director Dena Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.10815 of 2018)

decided on 30.10.2018.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ

petition and submitted that the petitioner is a government

employee and he has no right to remain posted at a particular

place of his choice.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India

and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in

(3 of 5) [CW-5851/2021]

(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".

7. 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:-

(4 of 5) [CW-5851/2021]

"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 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

(5 of 5) [CW-5851/2021]

mala fides or violation of any specific provision...."

8. 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, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India & Rajendra

Singh (both supra); secondly, the petitioner has been

transferred by the respondents in the administrative exigency;

thirdly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am

not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.