Rajasthan High Court

Smt. Taruna Bansal W/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15239/2022

Smt. Taruna Bansal W/o Shri Arunendra Kumar Gupta, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Plot No. 37, Flat No. 37 G-1, Vikas Nagar,
Dhawas Road, Heerapura Jaipur
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.        State     Of    Rajasthan,          Through         Its     Additional    Chief
          Secretary, School Education Department, Government Of
          Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2.        Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3.        Joint Director, School Education, Jaipur Division Jaipur
4.        Shri Laxmi Narayan Gautam, Senior Teacher Government
          Senior Secondary School, Raipura, Ajmer
                                                                       ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

17/10/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the order dated 28.08.2022 whereby the petitioner has been

transferred from Jaipur West to Sambhar Lake, Jaipur as well as

the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal

dated 27.09.2022 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner

against her transfer order was dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has

been transferred within a period of six months. Counsel further

submits that the transfer order has been issued by the

respondents just to accommodate the private respondent No.4.

(2 of 4) [CW-15239/2022]

Counsel further submits that the tribunal in other cases of

similarly situated employees has stayed the effect of transfer

order. Counsel further submits that the father-in-law of the

petitioner is seriously ill and there is no other person to look after

him. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been

transferred at a distance of 80 kms.

Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition.

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

(3 of 4) [CW-15239/2022]

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. 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

(4 of 4) [CW-15239/2022]

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 who is employee

of the respondent-department cannot claim to serve at a

particular place of his/her choice; secondly, looking to the

hardship of the petitioner, the petitioner has been transferred by

the respondents within the district; 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.