Rajasthan High Court

Smt. Manju Soni W/O Shri Harish ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 18 October, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15422/2022

Smt. Manju Soni W/o Shri Harish Kumar Soni, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Kha-55, Bhawani Nagar, Sikar Road, Jaipur Presently
Residing At Jetpura, Jaipur
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
       School Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
       Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2.     Director Secondary Education, Bikaner
3.     Shri   Yogendra       Kumar        Sharma,         Principal   Govt.   Sr.
       Secondary School Asleempur, Alwar
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

18/10/2022 By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

transfer order dated 26.08.2022, whereby the petitioner has been

transferred from Government Senior Secondary School Jaitpura,

Govindgarh, District Jaipur to Government Senior Secondary

School Kali Khad, District Dausa as well as the order passed by

the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 30.09.2022,

whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been transferred within short span of time of eight months and

the transfer order has been passed in a mala fide manner by the

(2 of 5) [CW-15422/2022]

respondents just to accommodate the private respondent No.3.

Counsel further submits that family circumstances of the

petitioner are not good and the husband of the petitioner is also a

government employee serving as a teacher. Counsel further

submits that the respondent No.3 has been transferred within 20

days' prior to passing of the present transfer order just to

accommodate him.

In support of the contention, counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter

of Rameshwar Prasad Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.10827/2015) decided on 08.09.2015.

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

(3 of 5) [CW-15422/2022]

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 order of transfer is disquieting. We express our disapproval".

9. 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

(4 of 5) [CW-15422/2022]

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 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 and working on the post of Principal cannot

claim to serve at a particular place of her choice, secondly,

although, allegation of mala fide has been levelled by the

petitioner in this writ petition, however, no person by name has

been impleaded as party in this writ petition, thirdly, the petitioner

is working in the District Jaipur since the year 2018 and looking to

her family circumstances, she has been accommodated by the

respondents in a nearby District only at a distance of 60 kms from

Jaipur, lastly, considering the facts and circumstances of the

present case and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble