Rajasthan High Court

Poonam Garwa W/O Ummed Singh vs The Union Of India on 27 May, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7632/2022

Poonam Garwa W/o Ummed Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
32/252 Pratap Nagar Sector 3, Sanganer Jaipur At Present
Posted As Woman Constable No. 075240129 Jaipur Airport
Sanganer Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     The Union Of India, Through The Secretary Home
       Department Government Of India Secretrate New Delhi
       India
2.     The Director General Of Central Industrial Police Force
       (Cisf), C.g.o. Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi.
3.     The Assistant Inspector General (Establishment), Central
       Industrial Police Force (Cisf) C.g.o Complex Lodhi Road
       New Delhi.
4.     The Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Police
       Force (Cisf) Jaipur Airport Jaipur Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, A.S.G with Mr. Dinesh Yadav Mr. C.S. Sinha Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

27/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is therefore, prayed that respondents be directed to produce the entire record which led to amendments on the basis of the record pleadings and submissions writ of following nature and directions may be issued:-

(2 of 5) [CW-7632/2022]

(I) The impugned transfer/ reliving order dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent in compliance of the order dated 28/03/2022 (Annexure-3) may kindly be declared, unconstitutional , unreasonable improper same deserve to be quashed & set-aside (II) respondent may kindly be directed to followed the instruction of circular / transfer policy issued by the department and also he may kindly be allowed for work at Jaipur AIRPORT as Women Constable GD with all service benefits and (III) and also the rejection of the representation order dated 12/05/2022 may kindly be quashed & set-aside (IV) Any other appropriate writ order of direction which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the petitioners."

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

transfer order dated 28.03.2022 followed with relieving order

dated 12.05.2022 whereby the petitioner has been transferred

from Jaipur Airport to N.C.R. Delhi.

Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grievance of

the petitioner as raised in the writ petition submitted that the

respondents have not followed the policy and son of the petitioner

is studying in Class 10th and according to the policy of the

department the respondents should have deferred the transfer of

the petitioner at least for a period of one year. The representation

submitted by the petitioner against her transfer has wrongly been

rejected by the respondents in an arbitrary manner.

Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Addl. Solicitor General opposed the

writ petition and submitted that according to the guidelines/policy,

the respondents have considered the case of the employees who

have submitted their representation and considering the fact that

the petitioner has been transferred only to N.C.R. Delhi where son

of the petitioner can get the outright admission in Central School

(3 of 5) [CW-7632/2022]

as the petitioner is a Central Government Employee. Counsel

further submits that the policy/guidelines are not mandatory in

nature.

Heard counsel for the parties 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.

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

(4 of 5) [CW-7632/2022]

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.

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

(5 of 5) [CW-7632/2022]

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 who is a

government employee cannot claim to serve at a particular place

of her choice; secondly, 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.