Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Amjad Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 October, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:44914]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
              (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18959/2025
 Sultan Singh Sahu S/o Manfool Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
 Ward No. 1, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
 1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School
          Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
 2.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
                                                                 ----Respondents
                                         ...

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18960/2025

Taskeen Zaheer W/o Najmuddin, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 1709, Ratakhet, Sajjan Nagar, B-Block, Girwa, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents .....

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19085/2025

Ram Niwas S/o Late Shir Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Ladoli, Tehsil Makrana District Deedwana- Kuchamna At Present Posted At Mahatma Gandhi Government School, Bidiyad District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. Satya Prakash Mahawar, At Present Posted As Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Rayta District Chittorgarh.

----Respondents ......

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19094/2025

Satya Prakash S/o Shri Kundan Mal, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 123 Rawalo Ka Bas, Post Babra, Pratapgarh Pali (Raj.), (Presently Posted Principal At Govt. Senior Secondary School, Pratapgarh Beawar (Raj.).

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (2 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education (Group-Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Joint Director, School Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.

4. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Beawar.

----Respondents .....

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19095/2025

Neena Bansal W/o Govind Bansal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Fatehnagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313205

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Joint Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner

----Respondents .....

(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19099/2025 Hukma Ram S/o Shri Gulla Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Udasar, Dhorimanna, District Barmer, At Present Working As Principal, At Govt. Senior Secondary School, Gogaji Ki Jaal Goliya Jetmal, District Barmer (Raj.) -----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director, Board Of Secondary Education For Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary, Barmer.

----Respondents .....

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (3 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19102/2025

Somalal Gameti S/o Halu Ji Gameti, Aged About 56 Years, Gameti Fala Mukam Post Talaiya Dungarpur Rajasthan 314801.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Secondary Education Rajasthan Bikaner.

2. District Education Officer (Secondary), District Dungarpur Rajasthan.

3. District Education Officer (Secondary), District Pratapgarh Rajasthan.

4. Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Talaiya Dungarpur

----Respondents .....

(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19111/2025

Sangeetha Detha W/o Dinesh Charan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Bera Batawa Khudala, Falna, Pali, Rajasthan.306116.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents .....

(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19112/2025

Sheela Asopa W/o Shri Puneet Asopa, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Children Park, 7Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (4 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan-Cum-Additional Commissioner, Samagra Shiksha, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Respondent .....

(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19114/2025

Kishor Kumar S/o Chain Singh Parmar, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 8-9, Prithviraj Nagar, Near Jhalamand Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents .....

(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19126/2025

Pinky Jain W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 9, Bhajan Nagar, Ajmer Road, Ward No. 2, District Beawar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (5 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

3. The District Education Officer, Beawar, Rajasthan.

4. Saraswati, Working As Govt. Sr. Sec. School Butiwas Raipur, Pali, Rajasthan.

----Respondents .....

(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19129/2025

Smt. Sapna Sharma W/o Late Shri Arvind Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of A-91, Subhash Nagar Shopping Center Jaipur (Ra.), (Presently Posted Principal At Govt. Senior Secondary School, Barwala, Makrana, Dist. Didwana-Kuchaman (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education (Group-Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Joint Director, School Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.

4. The District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Didwana-Kuchaman, (Raj.).

5. Pema Ram, Principal Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School (Ggups), Bhadliya District Nagaur.

----Respondents .....

(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19135/2025

Poonam Chand Kumhar S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 326, Punja Nagar, Jhadol, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (6 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Joint Director, School Education Department, Division Udaipur, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. District Education Officer, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Chief Block Education Officer, Jhadol, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents .....

(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19140/2025

Santosh Parihar W/o Shri Bhagaram, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of 56-A, Meghwal Basti, Near Panchmukhi Balaji Temple, Masuria, Jodhpur (Rajasthan.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan.)

2. The Director, Secondary Education And Ex-

Officio Additional State Project Director (Senior), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (Smsa) Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents .....

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (7 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

(15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19145/2025

Jagdish Prasad S/o Bhura Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Suratpura, Molisar Bada, Churu Raj, At Present Posted At Govt. Senior Secondary School Sahjusar (215288), Churu, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education (Secondary), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur(Raj.)

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. The District Education Officer(Secondary), Churu, Rajasthan.

----Respondents .....

(16) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19148/2025

Pradeep Kumar Kachhwah S/o Durga Ram, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of 154, Himmat Nagar, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Elementary And Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director Of Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents ....

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (8 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

(17) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19149/2025

Prem Devi D/o Shri Madan Lal W/o Late Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Pahadganj Iind, Lalsagar Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents ....

(18) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19156/2025

Harvinder Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Ward No. 08, 4 Krw, Amargarh, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Joint Secretary, Education Department (Group-2), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents .....

(19) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19160/2025

Manoj Kumar Choudhary S/o Ghanshyam Das, Aged About 59 Years, R/o C-106, Sarswati Nagar, Basni Phase-1, Jodhpur, Ditrict Jodhpur. At Present Residence At 49, Ashapurna Colony, Bhinmal Byepass Jalore, District Jalore. At Present Working As Principal At Govt. Senior Secondary, School, Devki Block Ahore, District Jalore, Raj.

----Petitioner

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (9 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director, Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents .....

(20) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19161/2025

Jitendra Kumar Satija S/o Shri Omesh Chander Satija, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Ward No. 36, 7 F 11, Jawahar Nagar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Joint Secretary, Education Department (Group-2), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. Trapti Agarwal, Working As Govt Senior Secondary School, Khaminpura 27F, Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents ......

(21) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19163/2025

Adram Limba S/o Shri Dulla Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House Number 59, Naya Chowk, Saraswati Nagar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (10 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Joint Secretary, Education Department (Group-2), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents .....

(22) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19164/2025

Jai Singh S/o Shri Gulab Ram, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of V/p Rampura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents .....

(23) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19165/2025

Shahzad Khan S/o Idris Khan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Masjid Wali Gali, Vpo Kelwada, Baran, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents ......

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (11 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

(24) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19166/2025

Asefa Sultana W/o Late Safat Ali, Aged About 53 Years, R/o H.no. 1B1 Near Bsnl Tower, 18-E, Chopasani Housing Board, Suraj Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Joint Director (Secondary), Education Department, Jodhpur.

4. The District Education Officer, Secondary, Jodhpur.

----Respondents ......

(25) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19181/2025

Liyaqat Husain Sheikh S/o Shri Badruddin Sheikh, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Village Post Kotra District Udaipur

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director, Secondary Education Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner Rajasthan

----Respondents .....

(26) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19211/2025

Laxmi Bhagtani D/o Shri Satish Nainani, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 171 B Harsh Nagar Ambamata, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (12 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

2. Director, Secondary Education Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner Rajasthan.

----Respondents .....

(27) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19224/2025

Prakash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Purushottam Lal Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, R/o House No. 59-B, Bapu Nagar, Senthi, District Chittaurgarh, At Present Working As Principal At Shahid Major Natwar Singh Shaktawat, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Chittaurgarh, District Chittaurgarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Director, Board Of Secondary Education For Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Chief District Education Officer, Chittorgarh.

4. District Education Officer, (Headquarter) Secondary, Chittaurgarh.

----Respondents .....

(28) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19253/2025

Ambika Choudhary W/o Nahar Singh Ruhela, Aged About 50 Years, Basni, V.p.o. Beras, Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

2. Director, Secondary Education Bikaner (Raj.)

3. Parmeshwar Lal Atariya, C/o Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

----Respondents

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (13 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

(29) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19305/2025

Amjad Khan S/o Akram Khan, Aged About 51 Years, Mehro Ka Bas, Badi Pole Ke Andar, Tehsil And District Jalore.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jalore, Rajasthan.

----Respondents .....

(30) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19352/2025

Sunita Dadrwal W/o Virendra, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Parwati Niketan, Dayanand Marg, Naya Bass Ward No. 13, Churu District Churu, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.

4. Hanuman Singh, Principal, Shaheed Head Constable Pal Singh Govt. Senior Secondary School Jasrasar, Churu, Rajasthan.

----Respondents ......

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (14 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

(31) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19402/2025

Vijay Krishna Vaishnav S/o Bihari Das Vaishnav, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Shri Krishna Marg Bhagakot, Banswara, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan Cum-

Paden Additional State Project Director (Senior) Samarag Shiksha Abhiyan (Smsa), Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents .....

(32) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19405/2025

Rajiv Kumar Junwa S/o Shri Shanti Lal Junwa, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Plot No. 33, Ward No. 12, Bahubali Colony, Banswara, Distt. Banswara (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan Cum-

Paden Additional State Project Director (Senior) Samarag Shiksha Abhiyan (Smsa), Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents .....

(33) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19444/2025

Naina Ram S/o Late Deva Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Meghwalo Ka Bass, Sanwalta Kalla, Tehsil- Rohat, District Pali (Raj.), (Presently Posted Principal At Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhanwari, Pali (Raj.)K.

----Petitioner Versus

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (15 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education (Group-Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Joint Director, School Education, Pali, Division, Pali.

4. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Pali.

----Respondents .....

(34) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19494/2025

Omparkash S/o Shri Sarwan Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 03 Ward No. 21, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Zone Bikaner.

3. The Principal, Pujya Bapu Nambardar Magghar Singh Ji Insan Gsss, Gurusar Modia, Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents .....

(35) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19529/2025

Sona Ram Choudhary S/o Goma Ram Choudhary, Aged About 53 Years, Village And Post Nand Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.) ----

Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (16 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

3. District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Secondary Education, Barmer, Rajasthan

----Respondents .....

(36) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19539/2025

Anju Kachhawaha W/o Shri Navneet Kachhawaha, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of G - 20, Shastrinagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. District Education Officer, (Head Quarter), Secondary Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4. Saroj Kanwar Nathawat, Presently Working As Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Thabukada, Mandore, (503724) Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents ......

(37) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19547/2025

Rurmal Mahariya S/o Nopa Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Dhani Hussainpura, Post Lachhari, Tehsil Ladnun, District Deedwana-Kuchaman At Present Posted As Principal, Mahatma Gandhi, Government School, Meetheri, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

----Respondents ......

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (17 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

(38) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19552/2025

Sita Ram Meghwal S/o Sh. Bhaira Ram Meghwal Ji, Aged About 59 Years, 3 No Tyuwel Behind, Suraj Pura Colony, C 38, Se Aage, Akadeeyawala, Bikaner (Raj.) At Present Posted As Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Lalasar, Block Nokha, District Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents .....

(39) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19598/2025

Fazlu Rahman S/o Munnan Khan, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Gh-5, Housing Board, Kumbhanagar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Secondary Education And Ex-Officio Addl.

State Project Director (Senior), Samgara Siksha Abhiyan (Smsa), Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

(40) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19902/2025

Dinesh Kumar Pipara S/o Shri Paras Mal Pipara, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of 94-B, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (18 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

2. The Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The District Education Officer, Secondary, Bhilwara.

4. Shri Jitendra Singh Rao, Posted As Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School Bhimganj, District Bhilwara.

----Respondents .....

(41) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20055/2025

Nawab Ali S/o Sardar Khan, Aged About 53 Years, 229/83, Ekta Nagar, Madina Masjid Ke Pass, Saran Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Respondents

(42) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19210/2025

Gena Ram Kodecha S/o Shri Aja Ram, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Sector 20-E, 30 Chopasni Housing Board Jodhpur (Raj.) (Presently) Posted Principal At Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Luni Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education (Group-Ii), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Joint Director, School Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.

4. The District Education Officer, (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Jodhpur.

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (19 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

5. Beena Sharma, Principal At Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Deval Pali (Raj.).

----Respondents .....

(43) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20004/2025

(Reserved on 10.10.2025)

Sashi Meena W/o Dilraj Meena, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 253, Adarsh Nagar, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, School Education / Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, (School Education), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The District Education Officer, Ajmer (Or Concerned District Education Officer).

----Respondents .....

(44) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19665/2025 (Reserved on 14.10.2025)

Mohammed Ishaq Sheikh S/o Shri Abdul Karim Kherada, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of 513 Ganchivada Mukam Post Peeth District Dungarpur Rajasthan 314406.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Secondary Education Rajasthan Bikaner.

2. District Education Officer (Secondary), District Dungarpur Rajasthan.

3. District Education Officer (Secondary), District Dhaulpur Rajasthan.

4. Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Ratanpura Dungarpur, 225309.

----Respondents .....

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (20 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

(45) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20020/2025 (Reserved on 14.10.2025)

Amolak Maurya S/o Shri Mitthu Prasad Maurya, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of House No. 1, Gali 1 Bidam Colony, Beawer, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. ---- Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan And Ex-Officio Additional State Project Director (Senior), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (Smsa).

----Respondents .......

(46) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20026/2025 (Reserved on 14.10.2025)

Ramesh Chandra Roat S/o Vaja Ji Roat, Aged About 51 Years, Ward No 1 Padliya Simalwara Dungarpur Rajasthan 314403.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Secondary Education Rajasthan Bikaner.

2. District Education Officer (Secondary), District Dungarpur Rajasthan.

3. District Education Officer (Secondary), District Baran Rajasthan.

4. Principal, Late Shree Revashanker Pandya Govt. Senior Secondary School Dhambola (223673) Dungarpur

----Respondents ....

(47) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20014/2025

(Reserved on 15.10.2025)

Prema Ram Rangera S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 53 Years, House No. 4/94, Ward No. 25, Towards West Of New Akashvani, Suratgarh, District Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (21 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. Prem Dan, Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, 10 Sarkari, Ganganagar.

----Respondents .....

(48) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20069/2025 (Reserved on 15.10.2025)

Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Bhagirath Mahariya, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Khudi Badi, Tehsil And District Sikar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

3. Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Kuchor Aguni, Bikaner.

4. Manju, Government Senior Secondary School Hapas, Sikar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Bhola Ram chahar Mr. Ratan Ankiya Mr. Ashok Choudhary Mr. Mahender Kumar Dudy Mr. Ripudaman Singh Mr. Gopal Sandu Ms.Kamini Joshi Mr. Kunal Singh Rathore Mr. Mahaveer Singh Rathore Mr. Manvendra Singh Rathore Mr. Lukesh Kumar Ramdhari Mr. Pradeep Jat Mr. Moti Singh Mr. Hanuman Singh Mr. Vipul Dharnia Mr. Kunwar Prikshit Raj Deora Mr. Hanuman Singh

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (22 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

Mr. Ankur Mathur Mr. Ravindra Paliwal Mr. Parikshit Nayak Mr. Mahendra Singh Godara Mr. Parvez Khan Moyal Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya Mr. Zafar Khan Mr. Harshit Yadav Mr. Sarwar Khan Mr. Jitender Singh Bhaleria Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary Mr. Bhim Raj Mudia Mr. Ashwin Kumar Nogiya for Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat Mr. Vishal Jangid.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, AAG with Mr. R.S. Bhati and Mr. Yuvraj Singh Rathore

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order

Reserved on : 09/10/2025, 10/10/2025, 14/10/2025 & 15/10/2025 Pronounced on : 16/10/2025

1. At the request and with the consent of learned counsels for

the parties, all these writ petitions have been heard together and

are being disposed of by this common order.

2. All these writ petitions have been filed challenging the

impugned transfer orders. The facts relating to all these writ

petitions reflect that the petitioners are working as Principals. By

the impugned transfer orders, they were transferred to new places

from their existing places. The transfer order reflects that they

were made with an approval of the competent authority.

3. The challenge to the transfer orders were made basically on

the grounds of infraction of the transfer policy of the State

Government which gives certain priorities in transfer for the

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (23 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

specific individuals like persons suffering with disability, cases of

spouses, widows, abandoned women, single women, ex-

servicemen, outstanding sportsmen, suffering with incurable

diseases, dependents of martyrs, personnel working in remote

areas, persons underwent by pass surgery or suffering from

cancer, kidney transplantation surgery or dialysis, paralysis, the

disability of two limbs, blindness etc.

4. Certain transfer orders were also challenged on the ground

that the transfer orders were made in violation of the executive

instructions relating to transfer policy wherein, a person about to

retire within one year or two years should not be transferred.

5. The transfer orders also challenged on the ground that by

the executive instructions, certain special priorities are given to

the persons who won the medals at State, National and

International level by accommodating them in the three

preferential places opted by the candidates.

6. The stand taken by the State Government is that the

transfers were made keeping in view the administrative

exigencies/needs and they are not the regular transfers. The

transfer orders were of special nature and the procedure which is

required to be followed in the case of general transfers was not

required to be adopted in the cases of special transfers. These

transfers were effected with a view to rationalise the working

pattern of the Principals. It is also the stand of the respondents

that though the transfer policy gives certain priorities for special

category of persons but those priorities were under the execution

instructions and they are only a guidelines. The executive

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (24 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

instructions do not confer any enforceable right on the employee

to remain in a place when he was holding a transferable post. It is

the choice of the employer as to when, where and at what places,

the employee is required to be worked.

7. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, who have

filed the writ petitions challenging the transfer orders on the

ground that as per the transfer policy of the State Government,

contend that the persons retiring within one or two years should

not be transferred. To support their contentions, they relied on

the guidelines and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court

in the case of Dr. Smt. Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil

Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.: RLW 2000 (1)

RAJASTHAN 233 and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench

of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Smt. Rani Jain Vs.

Secretary and Transport Commissioner, Government of

Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6971/2019,

decided on 13.05.2019.

8. The learned counsels appears for the petitioners who

assailed the transfer orders on the ground that the transfer policy

gives certain preferences to certain category of persons

particularly spouses, persons suffering with cancer or heart

surgery and disabilities contend that their cases have to be

considered keeping in view the said guidelines. Infraction of the

guidelines/the executive instructions would vitiates entire

transfers. It is also contended that if the State Government itself

framed certain guidelines being the welfare State, it has to follow

its own guidelines so as to minimize the hardships of the

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (25 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

employees. The transfer powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily to

cause hardship to employees that too, in the middle of the

academic year ignoring the guidelines.

9. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners who have

challenged the transfer order on the allegation of frequent transfer

contended that the powers of transfer cannot be arbitrarily

exercised transferring the employees frequently causing undue

hardships not only to the employee concerned and also to their

families affecting the educational avenues of the children;

therefore, such transfer orders are unsustainable.

10. The learned counsels appearing for the some of the writ

petitioners who have assailed the transfer orders on the ground

that they were working in the Mahatma Gandhi English Medium

Schools and they cannot be transferred to the Hindi Medium

Schools, contend that such transfers would amount to reversion

which can only be done under Rule 13 of The Rajasthan Civil

Services (Special Selection and Special Conditions of

Service for Appointment of Personnel in the English

Medium Schools) Rules, 2023.

11. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents - State submits that the judgment in Dr. Smt.

Pushpa Mehta's case (cited supra), and Smt. Rani Jain's case,

(cited supra), cannot be made applicable to the present cases.

The ratio laid down therein is contrary to the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court which clearly held that the special

priorities given under the executive instructions do not confer any

legally enforceable right on the employee and infraction of such

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (26 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

guidelines and executive instructions do not vitiate the transfer

orders. It is also contended that Section 80 of the Pension Rules of

1996 enables the employee to process the pension papers two

years prior to the date of the retirement. It does not prohibit the

transfer of employee. The initial concept of not transferring the

employee within two years of retirement in the context of Rule 80

has paled into insignificance for the reason that the whole process

of pension papers which used to be manual has now been made

on-line. There is no inconvenience on such process even if the

employee is transferred at the verge of retirement.

12. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that

the priorities given to the various categories of the persons under

the executive instructions/transfer policy would only be considered

when regular transfer orders are effected and not in the cases of

special transfer orders which are solely based on the

administrative exigencies/interests which can only be done with

the approval of the competent authority and it has rightly been

done in the present impugned transfers by duly obtaining the

consent from the competent authority.

13. It is also the submission of the learned Additional Advocate

General that the concept of special treatments is advisory in

nature and the same is not binding as they do not it give any

legally enforceable right to the employee and violation of such

advisory nature guidelines do not vitiate the transfer orders. It is

also contended that the transfer orders were made after relaxing

the prohibition by the competent authority and they cannot be

said to be during the probation period.

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (27 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

14. The learned Additional Advocate General that the special

priority for the medal winners were also under the executive

instructions. They are not binding in nature and an employee

cannot get any legal right therein. In support of his contentions,

the learned Additional Advocate General has referred to and relied

upon the following judgments:-

1. Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. :

1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659;

2. Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India & Anr.: (1993) 1 SCC 148;

3. Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas: (1993) 4 SCC 357;

4. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal and D.B. Singh Vs. D.K. Shukla & Ors.: (2004) 11 SCC 402;

5. Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.:

(2007) 8 SCC 150;

6. Pubi Lombi Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.:

(2024) 12 SCC 292;

7. Abhimanyu Choudhary Vs. Majer Ali & Ors.: D.B. Spl.

Appl. Writ No. 1044/2022, decided on 19.12.2022;

8. Maan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 586/2013, decided on 02.07.2024; and

9. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Prabat singh Jaitawat: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1253/2024, decided on 20.12.2024.

15. In the above factual background and contentions, this Court

is required to examine the challenge made to the impugned

transfer orders. Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951

deals with the transfer of the Government Servant. The said

provision reads hereunder:-

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (28 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

"20. Transfer of Government servant.--(a) Government may transfer a Government servant from one post to another; provided that except--

(i) on account of inefficiency or mis-behaviour, or

(ii) on his written request, a Government servant shall not be transferred substantively to, or, except in a case covered by Rule 50 appointed to officiate in, a post carrying less pay than the pay of the permanent post on which he holds a lien or could hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under Rule 17."

16. A reading of the above provision, it is clear that the

Government has a power to transfer the Government servant from

one place to another. There are certain restrictions. Government

servant cannot transfer an employee to the post which is carrying

less pay than the pay of the permanent post on which he holds

lien except on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour on his

written request. This means that a Government servant cannot be

transferred so as to effect his service conditions except in

exceptional cases enumerated therein.

17. A scrutiny of all the judgments relied upon by the learned

counsels appearing for the parties, the principles emerged are

that it is for the employer to decide when, where and at what

point of time, a public servant can be transferred from one place

to other place. The judicial review is permissible in a transfer

order only in a case, the transfer order is result of mala fides or in

violation of any statutory rules or infraction of any professed

norms or principle or the transfer being detrimental to the service

conditions of the employee and against public interest. None

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (29 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

observance of executive instructions do not confer any legally

enforceable right to an employee holding the transferable post.

However, if any mala fides are attributed, the person against

whom mala fides are attributed, they have to be necessarily

impleaded and the facts relating to the mala fide must be pleaded

and proved.

18. The ratio of the Division Bench decision in the case of Dr.

Smt. Pushpa Mehta (supra) as relied upon by the learned

counsels appearing for the petitioners has to be understood in the

context of the facts thereto and the ratio which has been laid

down with regard to judicial review by relying upon the various

judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court was that the Tribunals or the

Courts are not to interfere in the order of transfer unless they

suffer from mala fide or they are effected for extraneous

considerations other than the administrative reasons.

20. In the said case, the employee who was transferred, was

about to retire and was at the verge of retirement and she

challenged her transfer order on the ground that the transfer was

made to accommodate the private respondent therein, who was

interested in getting the post of the transferred employee. The

findings of the Tribunal would show that the transfer order suffer

from mala fide for the reason that the transfer order has been

made to accommodate the private respondent therein and the

State has not filed any appeal against the Tribunal's order which

set aside the transfer order on the ground of proven mala fide.

The said decision also do not laid any proposition that a person,

who is at the verge of retirement, cannot be transferred and what

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (30 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

is observed therein was that such a transfer proved to be not in

the public interest. It also said that while effecting such transfer, a

minimum inconvenience is caused to the concerned employee.

The transfer contrary to the said settled principles enabling the

Court's interference on the ground of mala fide.

20. The principle laid down in Smt. Rani Jain's case (supra) is

that the State being the welfare employer for all the Government

servants should not ordinarily disturb the superannuating

employees in the last years of their service and the decision

cannot create any embargo on the State power to transfer any

employee for the administrative reasons.

21. The Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules,

1996 is also relevant in this regard which reads hereunder:-

"80. Preparation of Pension papers Every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form 7 two years before the date on which a Government servant is due to retire on superannuation, or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement whichever is earlier."

22. The above Rule enable the Head of Office to prepare the

pension papers in a required format two years before the date of

retirement or superannuation of employee. It only deals with the

stage when the preparation of pension papers required to be

undertaken. Perhaps, the norm which has been developed in the

context of Section 80 Preparation Rules is that such employee is

not required to be transferred within such time so as not to impact

process of his pension papers. This norm was invoked in the

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (31 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

context of manual presentation of the pension papers. With the

advancement of the technology, now the presentation of the

pension papers has been made on-line. The whole process of

movement of pension papers could be monitored by the Head of

the Office/Department of an employee irrespective of the place of

posting where the employee is transferred/posted.

23. The law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the

guidelines/norm do not create any embargo on transfer of an

employee either within one year or within two years of

superannuation. It only says that the cases of the preferential

rights under the provisions, norms or the policy can be considered

accordingly.

24. The judgments cited supra would also make it clear that the

non-observance of such preferential rights created in favour of the

employee on various grounds under the executive instructions or

the policy do not create any legally enforceable right on the

employee. It is the choice of the employer when, where and what

time an employee can be transferred when such employee is

holding the transferable post. The entire guidelines are advisory in

nature and they are not binding on the employer. No doubt that

such policy or preferential rights which are granted to the

employees are required to be taken into account when the transfer

orders are effected.

25. I have gone trough the transfer policy of the State

Government. The preferential treatment and their consideration

of the cases falling under that category do not put any embargo

on the power of the State Government in the matter of transfer.

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (32 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

The general transfers are required to be made in between the 1 st

January and 30th April. The Transfer Policy and Guidelines also say

that there are special transfers also. These transfers are based on

administrative compulsions or exigencies. When the administrative

exigencies was the reason for transfer of an employee, the general

guidelines of general transfer are not required to be followed.

26. The case set up by the respondents - State is that the

transfer orders which are under challenge were made with a view

to make equitable distribution of the Principals in the various

institutions not to effect proper running of the institutions. It tried

to rationalize the filling up of the posts of Principals and,

therefore, they are made in the middle of the academic session.

They are for the administrative reasons. They are not general

transfers. There is no doubt that the State Government has an

authority to transfer the employees on the administrative grounds.

The administrative reasons give a right to the employer to transfer

any employee but at the same time, the State was supposed to

look into the grievances of the affected employees who are

otherwise entitled to consider special preferential rights. Such

preferential treatment do not out-weigh the administrative needs

or exigencies of the employer. This means that they have limited

right of consideration and not a vested right to ask for the place

which he has opted on the ground of special treatment.

27. The general rule is that when an employee is transferred

from the particular place, he has expectation of assured tenure.

The frequent transfers cannot be resorted to which would amount

to abuse of transfer power and results arbitrariness. Such frequent

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (33 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

transfers could not be said to be arbitrary transfers if the

administrative exigencies or needs arise. In the present cases,

some of the petitioners who have challenged the transfer orders

alleges frequent transfers. This Court has seen the background of

such transfers which shows that the transfers were initially made

on promotion and subsequently to rationalize the pattern of

Principals, they resorted to exercise the special powers of

transfers. If a single person is chosen, such frequent transfer can

be said to be mala fide. However, a single petitioner was not

chosen to frequent transfer. In the process of adjustment and

rationalization, the transfers were necessitated. They cannot be

said to be arbitrary exercise of powers.

28. The preferential treatment given to the Outstanding

Sportsmen particularly, the employees who won the medals in the

State, National and International level by giving postings in the

three preferences given by the employee is concerned non

compliance of such choices do not vitiate the transfers for the

reason that it is only the executive instructions. Non-observance

of such executive instructions do not create any legally

enforceable right on the part of the employee.

29. Some of the writ petitions have also been filed challenging

the transfer orders on the ground of mala fide. The mala fides

were attributed to the employees who were posted in the post

which the petitioners were holding prior to passing of the transfer

orders. The necessary pleadings are lacking with regard to the

definite facts relating to the allegation of mala fide. Further, there

is no mala fide attributing to the transferring authority. The

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (34 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

concerned authorities against whom the allegations of mala fide

are made were not made the parties. Therefore, this Court is not

inclined to exercise its jurisdiction to interfere in the impugned

transfer orders.

30. The cases of persons who are falling under disability

category required to be considered on different footing for the

reason that their rights are emanating from the statutory

provisions dealing with the specially abled persons. Such

employees cases are required to be considered depending upon

the nature of disability, their inconvenience vis-a-vis the

requirement of administrative exigencies. Both has to be

balanced. Such rights of specially abled persons are also

subservient to administrative needs. This Court is not inclined to

stop the transfer process till the consideration of the

representations, if any, to be filed in consequence oft his order as

that would impact the public interest.

31. In the result, all these writ petitions are disposed of as

follows:-

(i) This Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders of

transfer;

(ii) The liberty is to the petitioners who are claiming

preferential rights either under the executive

instructions/transfer policy or who are retiring within

two years or persons suffering with disability to make

representations. Such representations shall be filed

only after joining in the transferred post. Any such

representations are filed, the same shall be considered

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:44914] (35 of 35) [CW-18959/2025]

within a month keeping in view the executive

instructions/transfer policy vis-a-vis administrative

needs.

(iii) Other petitioners who are claiming various preferential

rights under the above executive instructions/transfer

policy are given liberty to make a representation in the

upcoming general transfers, if any. If any such

representations are made, the respondent-authorities

shall consider the same according to the policy as well

as administrative needs.

32. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no orders

as to costs of these writ petitions.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

[S/158, S/159, S/161, S/162, S/165, S/166, S/167, S/168, S/169, S/170,

S/172, S/174, S/176,S/177, S/178, S/179, S/180, S/182, S/183, S/184,

S/185, S/186, S/187, S/188, S/189, S/190, S/192, S/194, S/196, S/198,

S/200, S/203, S/209, S/212,S/220, S/222, S/229, S/231, S/233, S/253

(09.10.2025)], S/167 (10.10.2025), S/162 (14.10.2025), S/163

(14.10.2025), S/163 (14.10.2025), S/139 (15.10.2025) and S/143

(15.10.2025)--Mohan/-

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:37:17 PM)