Rajasthan High Court
Virendra Singh Yadav S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3066/2021
Virendra Singh Yadav S/o Shri Parasram Yadav, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Village Post Aklimpur, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Alwar,
Rajasthan.
4. Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Kayasa,
Teh. Behror, Alwar.
5. Nihal Singh Choreriya, Lecturer Political Science,
Government Senior Secondary School Ghatol, District
Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
01/07/2022
On 25.05.2022, this Court passed the following order;
"None present on behalf of the
petitioner.
However, in the interest of justice,
list this writ petition on
27.06.2022."
Today also none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the
transfer order dated 07.02.2021.
(2 of 4) [CW-3066/2021]
Learned AAG submits that the petitioner has been
transferred within the same district and prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition.
Heard counsel for the respondent(s) 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
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
(3 of 4) [CW-3066/2021]
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
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
(4 of 4) [CW-3066/2021]
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 a
Government employee, cannot claim to serve at a particular place
of his choice; secondly, the petitioner has been transferred by the
respondents within the same district; thirdly, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of
India & Rajendra Singh (both supra), I am not inclined to
exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article- 226 of the
Constitution of India.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands
dismissed.
All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /302
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
