Rajasthan High Court
Sunil Kumar S/O Rameshwar Lal vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd on 22 March, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:13553]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598/2024
Sunil Kumar S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Shreemath Residency, Balita Road, Kunadi, Kota, Pin - 324008.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur.
2. Chief Personnel Officer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
RESERVED ON : 14/03/2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 22/03/2024
1. The instant petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, whereby a challenge is raised against the
impugned transfer order dated 20.02.2024, by way of which, the
petitioner has been transferred from the Office of AEN(MST), Kota
to the Office of AEN(O&M), Baseri.
2. Being aggrieved of the impugned transfer order, learned
counsel for the petitioner has challenged the same, on the
following grounds, namely:-
2.1. That the petitioner is a low-paid employee.
2.2. That the petitioner's seniority is to be maintained at the
Divisional Level. Therefore, the impugned order, whereby an inter-
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:13553] (2 of 8) [CW-3598/2024]
district transfer is effectuated, is in contravention of the Rajasthan
State Electricity Board (Technical Workmen) Service Regulations,
1975.
3. In support of the arguments noted above, learned counsel
placed reliance upon certain interim orders, passed by this Court,
which are marked as Annexure-6.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-employer has
vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that the
scope of judicial interference is minimal in transfer orders,
especially when the same are passed on account of administrative
exigencies.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and scanned
through the record of the petition.
6. At the outset, it is noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court,
through a plethora of judgments, has time and again held that the
permissibility and scope of judicial review against transfer orders
is miniscule. The rationale exercised to circumscribe the Courts
interference with transfer orders whilst exercising writ jurisdiction,
primarily pertains to the fact that a bedlam of an aggravated
magnitude shall ensue within the workings of the Government, if
all employees, posted at a location of their liking, refuse to and/or
contest their postings, when issued on account of administrative
exigencies. Inevitably, the only scope of interference subsists in an
eventuality where the transfer orders are issued on account of
certain malafides, at the end of the transferring authority.
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:13553] (3 of 8) [CW-3598/2024]
7. In Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under:-
"We agree with the view expressed by the learned
Judges that transfer is always understood and
construed as an incident of service. The words 'or
other conditions of service' in juxtaposition to the
preceding words 'denies or varies to his disadvantage his
pay, allowances, pension' in Rule 19(1)(a) must be
construed ejusdem generis. Any alteration in the
conditions of service must result in prejudice to the
Government servant and some disadvantage touching
his pay, allowances, pension, seniority, promotion, leave
etc. It is well understood that transfer of a
Government servant who is appointed to a
particular cadre of transferable posts from one
place to another is an ordinary incident of service
and therefore does not result in any alteration of
any of the conditions of service to his
disadvantage. That a Government servant is liable
to be transferred to a similar post in the same
cadre is a normal feature and incident of
Government service and no Government servant
can claim to remain in a particular place or in a
particular post unless, of course, his appointment
itself is to a specified, non-transferable post."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Roy vs. Union of
India and Anr. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 148, has held that the
order of transfer is a natural consequence of service, especially
when the transferred employee is rendering his services on a
transferable post. The relevant extract is reproduced herein-
under:-
"It is true that the order of transfer often causes a
lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up
of the concerned employees but on that score the
order of transfer is not liable to be struck down.
Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the
rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any
proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not
interfere with the order of transfer. In a transferable
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:13553] (4 of 8) [CW-3598/2024]
post an order of transfer is a normal consequence
and personal difficulties are matters for
consideration of the department. We are in agreement
with the Central Administrative Tribunal that the appellant
has not been able to lay any firm foundation to
substantiate the case of malice or mala fide against the
respondents is passing the impugned order of transfer."
9. Similarly, in Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. vs. State of
Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659, the
Hon'ble Apex Court propelled that 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.
10. Furthermore, in National Hydroelectric Power
Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan reported in (2001) 8 SCC
574, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"On a careful consideration of the submissions of the
learned counsel on either side and the relevant rules to
which our attention has been invited to, we are of the
view that the High Court was not justified in interfering
with the impugned orders of transfer. It is by now
well-settled and often reiterated by this Court that
no Government servant or employee of public
Undertaking has any legal right to be posted
forever at any one particular place since transfer
of a particular employee appointed to the class or
category of transferable posts from one place to
other is not only an incident, but a condition of
service, necessary too in public interest and
efficiency in the public administration. Unless an
order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide
exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory
provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or
the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a
matter of routine, as though they are the Appellate
Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the
Management, as against such orders passed in the
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:13553] (5 of 8) [CW-3598/2024]
interest of administrative exigencies of the service
concerned."
11. Along the aforesaid lines, the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.K.
Nausad Rahaman vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in
(2022) 12 SCC 1, held that it is the exigencies of service and
administration which shall have the paramount say in 'when' and
'where' an employee shall be posted. Resultantly, an employee's
posting at a place of their liking, especially when employed on a
transferable job, invariably does not constitute their fundamental
right which ought to be protected by the Courts.
12. In summation, this Court is of the view that the
consideration regarding which employee should be posted 'where',
falls purely within the administrative domain of the appropriate
authority/department to decide, in the best interests of the
working of the said department, whilst seeking to advance the
department's resultant output and service efficiency. Unless the
order is vitiated by mala fides or is passed in violation of any
applicable statutory provisions, the Courts ought not to extend
interference in such orders. By logical deduction, it is made rather
obvious that no Government will be able to smoothly function if
the Government Servants insist that once appointed or posted in a
particular place, they should continue at such place, as long as
they desire whilst meeting out their individualistic and familial
ease. The fact of the transfer being an indispensable part of an
employee's service is of paramount importance, which often loses
favourability at the end of the employee, when they become
comfortable with the place of their choosing.
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:13553] (6 of 8) [CW-3598/2024]
13. Resultantly, it is noted that a government employee, posted
at a location of their liking, does not have the fundamental
protection to continue serving at the said location, especially in
light of the fact that the incident of transfer, is a part and parcel of
the conditions of service, when employed on a transferable post.
It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties
and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees
but on that score alone, the order of transfer cannot be struck
down. Administrative exigencies ought to prevail and/or take
precedence over the familial and individualistic priorities of the
employees posted on transferable jobs. The only eventuality,
where the Courts may extend interference in transfer orders, is
when the transfer orders violate an applicable statute or are
passed on account of certain malice. In the absence of any specific
malafides alleged, the Courts interference is largely curtailed by
the plethora of judicial pronouncements noted above.
14. Additionally, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, this Court is further not inclined to interfere with the
impugned transfer order dated 20.02.2024, for the following
reasons as well, namely:-
14.1.That the order impugned dated 20.02.2024, is a common
order transferring over 95 employees, within the State of
Rajasthan, on account of administrative exigencies in the workings
of the respondent-employer, which is public utility department..
The name of the petitioner is reflected at Sr. No. 7.
14.2.That transfer policies ought to be complied with in letter and
spirit. However, in public utility departments, where the nature of
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:13553] (7 of 8) [CW-3598/2024]
services rendered is flexible and volatile, on account of
administrative exigencies, deviations can be made and
accordingly, transfers can be ordered.
14.3.Qua the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding the disturbance of his seniority on account of the inter-
district transfer, learned counsel for the respondents satisfied the
Court by submitting at Bar that seniority is ascertained on the
basis of the timeframe/period of services of the employee.
Therefore, the mere transfer of the petitioner from one district to
another, shall not affect the seniority of the petitioner.
14.4.What constitutes an administrative exigency, can be
ascertained by the employer itself, best equipped to understand
the nuances of the workings of their Department. The Court, by no
stretch of judicial intervention and in the limited arena of its
knowledge of the workings of the public departments, can ponder
on the question that whether or not an administrative exigency
subsisted.
14.5.In public utility services, transfer is a part and parcel of
service and the petitioner does not possess a vested right to
continue serving at the place of their liking/choice.
15. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing observations and
placing reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as
enunciated in Varadha Rao (Supra), Rajendra Roy (Supra),
Shilpi Bose (Supra), National Hydroelectric Power
Corporation (Supra) and S.K. Nausad Rahaman (Supra), this
Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition.
[2024:RJ-JP:13553] (8 of 8) [CW-3598/2024]
16. As a result, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /1240
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
