Rajasthan High Court
Adarsh Mathur S/O Shri Navneet ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15792/2022
Adarsh Mathur S/o Shri Navneet Kumar Mathur, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 46, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Energy, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its
Secretary Administration.
3. Ram Khiladi Meena, Aen (220 Ikv Gss) Badnu C/o
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Mathur
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
21/10/2022
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
transfer order dated 14.10.2022 whereby the petitioner working
on the post of Assistant Engineer has been transferred from
Jamuwa Ramgarh, Jaipur to Badnu, District Bikaner.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
been transferred to accommodate the respondent No.3. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner has been transferred within a
short span of six months. Counsel further submits that the
(2 of 4) [CW-15792/2022]
transfer of the petitioner is in violation of transfer policy made by
the respondents.
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.
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".
(3 of 4) [CW-15792/2022]
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 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
(4 of 4) [CW-15792/2022]
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 working on
the post of Assistant Engineer is having great responsibility for
distribution of the electricity, therefore, looking to the capacity and
ability of the petitioner, he has been transferred at Badnu in the
Nigam Interest vide transfer order dated 14.10.2022 and not only
the petitioner but 45 other engineers have also been transferred,
therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer is in violation of
transfer policy; secondly, the petitioner is working in the district
Jaipur for more than last two years; 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 /71
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
