Rajasthan High Court

Suresh Kumar Saini S/O Shri Gopal ... vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran ... on 22 August, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12117/2022

Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Near Dehad Ki Bawadi, Mali Pada Lakheri, District
Bundi.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut
         Bhawan,     Janpath,       Jyoti    Nagar,       Jaipur   Its   Managing
         Director.
2.       Chief Personnel Officer Rrvpnl, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath,
         Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
3.       Assistant Engineer, 132 Kv Gss Rrvpnl, Lakhrti District
         Bundi.
4.       Ahmed Noor, At Present Working On The Post Of Ssa-I, In
         The Office Of Assistant Engineer 132 Kv Gss, Dug, District
         Jhalawar.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

22/08/2022 Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your lordships may kindly graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and :-

I) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 6.8.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) by appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue to work on the post

(2 of 4) [CW-12117/2022]

of SSA-I at his present place of posting i.e. in the office of AEN (132 KV GSS) Lakheri District Bundi with all consequential benefits.

Iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the Petitioner.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

transfer order dated 06.08.2022, whereby the petitioner has been

transferred from Lakheri District Bundi to Dug District Jhalawar.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been transferred at a distance of 270 kms and the transfer order

has been passed just to accommodate the private respondent

No.4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a low paid

employee and prayed for quashing the transfer order.

Heard counsel for the petitioner 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

(3 of 4) [CW-12117/2022]

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".

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

(4 of 4) [CW-12117/2022]

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 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 an employee of the corporation cannot claim to serve at a particular place of posting of his choice, secondly, the respondents vide order dated 06.08.2022 transferred as many as 208 employees, thus it cannot be said that the same has been passed in violation of Rule/order to accommodate the private respondents, lastly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India & Rajendra Singh (both supra), no case is made out to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.