Rajasthan High Court
Sonu Kumar Balwani S/O Shri Babu ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14381/2021
Sonu Kumar Balwani S/o Shri Babu Lal Balwani, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Village Itawa District Kota
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Public Health Engineering Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Engineer (Admn.), Public Health Engineering
Department, Jal Bhawan -2, Civil Lines Jakeb Road,
Jaipur.
3. Karishma Jangam, Junior Engineer, Rural Sub Division
Ramganj Mandi Kota.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Gupta
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
15/02/2022
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the transfer order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the respondent
no.2 as well as the order dated 22.11.2021 whereby the appeal
filed by the petitioner against the transfer order dated 30.09.2021
has been dismissed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate
Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'Tribunal').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially
appointed in the services of the respondent department on the
post of Junior Engineer in the year 2015. After almost having
worked for about five years, was transferred to Sub-Division
(2 of 4) [CW-14381/2021]
Sangod (Kanwas) Kota, vide order dated 31.12.2020, pursuant to
which the petitioner joined on 07.01.2021. The petitioner was
again transferred from Sub-Division Sangod (Kanwas) Kota to
Sub-Division Baran vide order dated 30.09.2021, including 113
other employees to different places. The order dated 30.09.2021
was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal by filing
appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2021.
Grievance of the petitioner by filing of the present writ
petition is that the transfer order dated 30.09.2021 which is
impugned in the present writ petition has been passed only to
accommodate the respondent no.3 and further that the petitioner
has been transferred at a distant place of about 200 kms., and
that too within a short span of about eights months which is
contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government.
Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds
raised before the Tribunal submitted that the present transfer
order impugned herein is nothing but just to accommodate &
facilitate the respondent no.3 in place of the petitioner and further
submitted that the place where the petitioner has been transferred
is at a distance of about 200 kms. Counsel further submitted that
the Tribunal has also committed illegality in dismissing the appeal
filed by the petitioner.
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
(3 of 4) [CW-14381/2021]
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".
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
(4 of 4) [CW-14381/2021]
of his choice in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Anr. (supra);
secondly not only the petitioner but 113 other employees also
have been transferred vide order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the
respondent no.2 as such it does not appear to be a case of
malafide on the part of the authority in accommodating particular
persons; thirdly in my view the Tribunal has not committed any
illegality in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and lastly
in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to
exercise jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Upendra/46
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
