Rajasthan High Court

Jagan Lal Meena Son Of Shri Rang Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 July, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR
               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11146/2022
Jagan Lal Meena Son Of Shri Rang Lal Meena, Aged About 52 Years,
Resident Of House No. 354, Scheme No.8, Gandhi Nagar, Alwar.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department
       Of Energy, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti
       Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.
3.     Shiv Ram Sharma, Presently Posted As Assistant Engineer (O
       And M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Laxmangarh,
       District Alwar.
4.     Johri Lal Meena, Presently Member Of Legislative Assembly,
       Rajgarh, District Alwar.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Katara

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 29/07/2022

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

following prayers;

"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure-1) qua the petitioner, and further be pleased to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner at Laxmangarh, District Alwar till completion of two years period at one place in accordance with the transfer policy of the DISCOM.

Any other order/direction/ relief which this Hon'ble Court deems proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner along with cost."

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

transfer order dated 18.07.2022 whereby the petitioner has been

transferred from Laxmangarh (Alwar) to Pratapgarh (Alwar).

(2 of 4) [CW-11146/2022]

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been transferred just to accommodate private respondent.

Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been transferred in

a mala fide manner on the instructions of local M.L.A. Counsel

further submits that the petitioner has been transferred within

nine months and the respondent(s) have violated their policy.

4. Counsel for the respondent(s) opposed the writ petition.

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

(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 where in para Nos. 3 and

4 it has been 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

(3 of 4) [CW-11146/2022]

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:-

"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

(4 of 4) [CW-11146/2022]

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...."

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; secondly, the petitioner has been transferred within

the same district at a nearby place due to administrative

exigency; thirdly, although the petitioner has levelled the

allegation of mala fide against the local M.L.A., but no person by

name has been impleaded as party-respondent in the writ

petition; 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 for interference by this

court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.