Rajasthan High Court
Narendra Kumar Sharma, S/O- Shri ... vs State Of Raj on 14 March, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4019/2022
Narendra Kumar Sharma, S/o- Shri Babulal Sharma, Aged About
51 Years, R/o-32/423, Pratap Nagar, Sector-3, Sanganer, Jaipur
Raj. At Present Posted As Lecturer (History), At Govt. Senior
Secondary School Balawala, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Raj, Through Chief Secretary Education Depart-
ment, Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Vandana Bunkar, Posted As Lectorer, Govt. Senior Sec-
ondary School, Lodha, Banswara.
4. Manoj Pandey, President Mansrover Block Congress Com-
mittee, Gokhale Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
14/03/2022
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 28.02.2022 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
02.02.2021 transferring him from Government Senior Secondary
School, Balawala, Jaipur to Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School
Gunawati, Makrana, Nagaur has been dismissed.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been
transferred by the respondents vide order dated 02.02.2021 from
(2 of 5) [CW-4019/2022]
Government Senior Secondary School, Balawala, Jaipur to Ma-
hatma Gandhi Govt. School Gunawati, Makrana, Nagaur. Counsel
further submits that the petitoner has been transferred just to
accommodate the respondent No.3. Counsel further submits that
the tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner
without application of mind.
3. In support of the contentions, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court at Principal
Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Dr. Smt. Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil
Service 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 and submits that the petitioner has been transferred due
to administrative exigency. Counsel further submits that the
petitioner is working at the present place of posting i.e. Jaipur
since 2018 and prayed for dismissed of the 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:-
"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
(3 of 5) [CW-4019/2022]
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-
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
(4 of 5) [CW-4019/2022]
(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
has been exercised by the High Court to
stall a lawful order of transfer is disquiet-
ing. We express our disapproval".
(5 of 5) [CW-4019/2022]
9. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dis-
missed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner is a government
employee and he cannot claim as a matter of right to serve at a
particular place of his choice; secondly 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 circum-
stances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the ju-
risdiction of this Court under Article 226 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 /121
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
