Rajasthan High Court
Dinesh Yadav Son Of Shri Bal Mukund vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran ... on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15400/2022
Dinesh Yadav Son Of Shri Bal Mukund, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of 18, Gopal Vihar-I, Police Line Nayapra, Kota City
Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut
Bhawan, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.) Through Its Managing Director.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Chief Engineer (Civil) Jaipur, Chambal Power House,
Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Executive Engineer, (Civil), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited, Shade No. 14, Kota Tharmal
Power, Campus, Kunhadi, Kota, District Kota (Raj.)
5. Gulam Mohammed, A.en. (Civil), O/o Se Civil, Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal Kumari Giri
Mr. Samarth Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Lodha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
21/10/2022
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
transfer order dated 12.10.2022 by which the petitioner who is
working on the post of A.En. has been transferred from Jhalawar
to Ajmer in the interest of corporation.
(2 of 4) [CW-15400/2022]
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that wife of the
petitioner is also working at Kota. Counsel further submits that the
petitioner has been transferred within one year. Counsel further
submits that by the impugned transfer the family of the petitioner
will be disturbed.
Counsel for the respondents 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
observe that the impugned order has been
passed in breach of the settled principles and
(3 of 4) [CW-15400/2022]
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 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
(4 of 4) [CW-15400/2022]
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 an
employee of the corporation cannot claim to serve at a particular
place of his choice; secondly, the petitioner is working on the post
of A.En. and looking to his ability and work performance, he has
been transferred at Ajmer by the Corporation for better
distribution of the electricity to the public at large; thirdly, so far
as the working of the wife of the petitioner is concerned, the
petitioner and his wife are at liberty to make application for
transfer of his wife at Ajmer 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 /108
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
