Rajasthan High Court
Suraj Prasad Meena S/O Latoor Ram ... vs Union Of India on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7557/2022
Suraj Prasad Meena S/o Latoor Ram Meena, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Nayagoan Balka, Tehsil
Rajgarh, Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Inspector General Cum Chief
Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, North
Western Railway Headquarter, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
26/05/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:-
"A. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the entire records related to the
case and after examining the same be
pleased to quashed and set aside the order
dated 04.05.2022 so far it relates to the
Petitioner and respondent be directed to
allow the Petitioner to continue at his
present place of posting as he is working
prior to passing the impugning order with
all consequential benefits.
B. Any other prejudicial order, if passed
during the pendency of the appeal, the
same may kindly be taken on record and
after examining the same be quashed and
set aside.
C. Any other beneficial order or direction,
which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and
(2 of 4) [CW-7557/2022]
proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case may kindly be passed in favor of
the Petitioner.,"
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 04.05.2022 whereby the petitioner has been
transferred from Jaipur to Rewari.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a
heart patient and therefore he is unable to move from Jaipur to
Rewari. Counsel further submits that one shadow post for the
petitioner has been created by the respondent at Rewari. Counsel
further submits that one more post is also available at Jaipur.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
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
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.
(3 of 4) [CW-7557/2022]
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".
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
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.
(4 of 4) [CW-7557/2022]
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...."
This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner is working at
Jaipur for last about six years; secondly, the petitioner who is a
Government employee cannot claim to serve at a particular place
of his choice, and lastly in the facts and circumstances of the
present case and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India & Rajendra
Singh (both supra), I am not inclined to exercise the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /288
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
