Rajasthan High Court

Sahdev Singh S/O Shri Tara Singh vs Rajasthan Road Transport ... on 12 May, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13146/2020

Sahdev Singh S/o Shri Tara Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of
Bachhamadi (Noh), District- Bharatpur (Raj.)

                                                                   ----Petitioner

                                    Versus

1.     Rajasthan Road        Transport      Corporation Ltd.,      Through Its
       Executive Director (Administration), Rajasthan Road Transport
       Corporation Ltd., Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

2.     Chief Manager, Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation Ltd.,
       Bharatpur Depot, Bharatpur (Raj.)

                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Harshita Thakral

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 12/05/2022

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

following prayers;

"It is, therefore, humbly and most respectfully prayed that:-

i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set aside the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by the Respondents and further direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work at Bharatpur Depot.

ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction direct the respondent to issue an order for posting at Bharatpur Depot on some other post other than Driver as per medical report of the petitioner.

iii) Any other order, or direction which deem, just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

iv) Cos of the writ petition may also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the

transfer order dated 19.10.2020 whereby the petitioner has been

transferred from Bharatpur Depot to Shahpura.

(2 of 4) [CW-13146/2020]

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been transferred at a distance of 200 km and the petitioner is

medically unfit and prayed for quashing of the order dated

19.10.2020.

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

submitted that the petitioner who is an employee of the

Corporation cannot claim to serve at a particular place of his

choice.

5. In support of the contentions, counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by 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

(3 of 4) [CW-13146/2020]

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. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by 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

(4 of 4) [CW-13146/2020]

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. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. 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 and looking to the medical condition of the

petitioner, the petitioner has been transferred to Shahpura with a

direction to take light work from him; secondly, 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.