Rajasthan High Court
Sunita Vijay Wife Of Shri Lalita ... 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. 15225/2022
Sunita Vijay Wife Of Shri Lalita Prasad Vijay, Aged About 58
Years, Resident Of D-1, Keshav Nagar, Sawai Madhopur
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Elementary And
Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Director, School Education, Bharatpur Division,
Bharatpur.
3. Prem Raj Bairwa, Presently Under Transfer From The Post
Of Senior Teacher, Government Upper Primary School,
Kishangarh Chahara, District - Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sahrma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG
Mr. Ajay Rajawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
21/10/2022
Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 28.08.2022 whereby the petitioner
has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School
Rawanjana Chaur, District Sawaimadhopur to Government Upper
Primary Kishangarh, Chahara, District Sawaimadhopur as well as
order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal
dated 27.09.2022, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner was
dismissed.
(2 of 4) [CW-15225/2022]
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by
the Tribunal is without application of mind and the petitioner is
suffering with serious mental problem, for which, she is taking
regular treatment at Jaipur. Counsel further submits that only 18
months left in the retirement of the petitioner.
Counsel appearing on behalf of 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-15225/2022]
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 interfere with the
order instead affected party should
(4 of 4) [CW-15225/2022]
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 cannot claim to serve at a particular place
of her choice, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India & Rajendra
Singh (both supra), secondly, considering the medical condition
of the petitioner, the respondents have posted her at a nearby
place within the District Sawaimadhopur, lastly, the petitioner is
taking treatment at Jaipur and not from any Doctor at present
place of posting, therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, 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. All the pending
applications stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Upendra Pratap Singh /106
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
