Rajasthan High Court
Gopesh Kumar Bhatt S/O Shri Govind ... vs Secretary, Secondary Education on 9 March, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 406/2022
Gopesh Kumar Bhatt S/o Shri Govind Narayan Bhatt, Aged About
58 Years, R/o- 60, Ganpati Nagar, Shipra Path, Mansarovar,
Jaipur (Raj.). Employee Id No. Rjjp199518014072.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Secretary, Secondary Education, Government Of Ra-
jasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Principal, Government Senior
Secondary School Main Market Ayana, Tehsheel Itawa,
Disrict- Kota.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote, Adv. with
Mr. Dikshant Jain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
09/03/2022
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 6.01.2022 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services
Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'Tribunal')
whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated
29.09.2021 transferring him from Government Senior Secondary
School Mendwas, Jaipur to Government Senior Secondary School,
Malsa Bawri, Marvar Junction, Pali has been dismissed.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the respon-
dents vide order dated 25.09.2021 transferred the respondent
(2 of 5) [CW-406/2022]
No.3 at the place where the petitioner was working and just to ac-
commodate and post him at the place of the petitioner, the re-
spondents passed the order dated 29.09.2021 transferring the pe-
titioner to another place to get the post vacant for respondent
no.3. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been fre-
quently transferred and at the present place of posting, the peti-
tioner has worked only for one year and there was no administra-
tive exigency in transferring the petitioner from one place to the
other. Counsel further submits that only two years' time remains
in the retirement of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that all
these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Tri-
bunal and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is without ap-
plication of mind.
3. In support of the contentions, counsel relied upon the judg-
ment passed by the Division Bench of this court at Principal Seat,
Jodhpur in the matter of Dr. Smt. Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Ser-
vice Appellate Tribunal & Anr., D.B. Civil Special Appeal
No.1430/1999, decided on 16.12.1999.
4. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the
matter of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in
2010(2) CDR 710 (Raj.).
5. Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ
petition.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
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, in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10
has held as under:-
(3 of 5) [CW-406/2022]
"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 trans-
ferred in the administrative exigencies from
one place to the other. Transfer of an em-
ployee 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 Gov-
ernment can function if the Government Ser-
vant 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 interfer-
ing 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 ser-
vant 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 compe-
tent authority do not violate any of his
legal rights. Even if a transfer order is
passed in violation of executive instruc-
tions or orders, the courts ordinarily
should not interfere with the order in-
stead affected party should approach
the higher authorities in the depart-
ment. If the courts continue to inter-
fere with day-to- day transfer orders is-
sued by the government and its subor-
dinate authorities, there will be com-
plete chaos in the administration which
would not be conducive to public inter-
est. 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 equiv-
alent post without adverse consequence on the
service or career prospects is very limited be-
(4 of 5) [CW-406/2022]
ing confined only to the grounds of mala fides
or violation of any specific provision...."
8. 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 circum-
stances. Firstly, the High Court has noted
that as a result of the stay on the order of
transfer, the headquarters of the respon-
dent 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 ob-
taining medical treatment in Mumbai. In
our view, neither of these reasons can fur-
nish a valid justification for the High Court
to take recourse to its extraordinary juris-
diction under Article 226 of the Constitu-
tion 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 ei-
ther mala fide or in breach of law. The High
Court could not have dictated to the em-
ployer 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 ex-
ercise of judicial power. We are constrained
to observe that the impugned order has
been passed in breach of the settled princi-
ples and precedents which have consis-
tently been enunciated and followed by this
Court. The manner in which judicial power
(5 of 5) [CW-406/2022]
has been exercised by the High Court to
stall a lawful order of transfer is disquiet-
ing. We express our disapproval".
9. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dis-
missed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner who is working on
the post of Principal which is a gazetted officer of the State, can-
not claim as a matter of right to serve at a particular place of his
choice; secondly, the petitioner has been transferred due to ad-
ministrative exigency; thirdly in view of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Singh &
Union of India (both supra), in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands
dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /119
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
