Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sukhdan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 25 November, 2025

Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Praveer Bhatnagar

[2025:RJ-JD:50969-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1692/2025

Sukhdan S/o Lt. Sh. Kundan Dan, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
154, Man Sarowar Scheme, Near Shiv Mandir, Pal, Pal (Rural),
Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342001.
                                                                           ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
         Of     Education,       Government             Of      Rajasthan,       Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.       The Joint Director, School Education, Jodhpur Range,
         Jodhpur.
4.       The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
         Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5.       The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School,
         Panchla Khurd, Tehsil Tinwari, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan-
         342306.
6.       Asha Solanki W/o Sh. Vikram Singh, Resident Of Plot
         No.21,     Khasra       No.156,        Khediwala           Bera    ,   Jodhpur,
         Rajasthan- 342304.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Aman Maheshwari
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sajjan Singh, GA-cum-AAG, asst
                                   by Mr. Yuvraj Singh and
                                   Ms. Mehali Mehta



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

25/11/2025

1. The present special appeal has been filed on behalf of the

appellant-petitioner challenging the order dated 16.10.2025

passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby learned

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 03:13:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50969-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1692/2025]

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition No.20050/2025 filed by

the petitioner.

2. The grievance of the appellant is that earlier he filed a writ

petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8453/2025, which was

decided on 02.05.2025 with the direction to the respondents to

consider his representation. He further submits that without

deciding the representation submitted by him before the

Competent Authority, the respondent-Department posted some

other person in place of appellant on the post of Principal. Further,

it is contended by the counsel that on account of this situation,

there are two persons working on the post of Principal and the

appellant has already been promoted on the post of Principal,

whereas he has been shown as Vice-Principal.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General opposes the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and

submits that the appellant has been transferred only 150 Kms

from his place of posting and further prayed for dismissal of the

special appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as

carefully gone through the material available on record.

6. 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

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 03:13:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50969-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1692/2025]

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".

7. 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

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 03:13:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50969-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1692/2025]

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 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....".

8. This appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed,

for the reasons; firstly, the appellant is a Government employee

and he cannot claim to serve at a particular place of his choice;

secondly, the appellant was promoted on the post of Principal and

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 03:13:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50969-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1692/2025]

the respondents have transferred the appellant, due to

administrative exigency, and considering the facts and

circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of

India & Rajendra Singh (both supra); in our considered view,

no case is made out for interference by this Court.