Rajasthan High Court

Mahesh Kumar Chandak Son Of Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11103/2022

Mahesh Kumar Chandak Son Of Shri Madanlal Chandak, Aged
About 53 Years, Presently Posted As Xen (O And M), Jaipur
Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ramganjmandi, Kota, Resident Of
House No. 4 C 9, Rangbadi Yojna, Kota, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
       Energy Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti
       Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.
3.     Secretary (Administration), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
       Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
4.     Shri Vishnu Dutt Xen (O And M-Ii), Jvvnl, Ramganjmandi,
       Kota.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

28/07/2022

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordships may pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and:-

A/ By an appropriate writ order or direction, impugned transfer order No.JPD/ADMN/HR/ESTT./F.3(4)/D.153 4 dated 18.7.2022 qua the petitioner be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is permitted to join at Ramganjmandi office.

(2 of 5) [CW-11103/2022]

B/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. C/ Writ Petition filed by the petitioner's may kindly be allowed with costs."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is

working on the post of XEN (O & M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam

Limited, Ramganjmandi, Kota and he has been transferred by the

respondents vide order dated 18.07.2022 from Ramganjmandi

Kota to Bamanvas, Sawaimadhopur, which is about 280 kms. from

his present place of posting.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a mala fide

manner, the petitioner has been transferred just to accommodate

the private respondent No.4. Counsel further submits that the

respondents have violated their own policy and the petitioner has

been transferred only within a short span of nine months.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. 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

(3 of 5) [CW-11103/2022]

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".

6. 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, in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10,

has 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

(4 of 5) [CW-11103/2022]

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

7. 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 his choice, secondly, the petitioner has been transferred

by the respondents at a nearby place in another district, therefore,

It cannot be said that the petitioner has been transferred in a

mala fide manner, thirdly, although the allegation of mala fides

has been levelled by the petitioner in this writ petition against

official respondent(s), but no person by name has been impleaded

as party-respondent in this writ petition; lastly, in view of the

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

(5 of 5) [CW-11103/2022]