[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Prasad Jat vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 February, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:5946-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1867/2025
Jagdish Prasad Jat S/o Hardev Jat, Aged About 57 Years,
Resident Of Rindalya Rampura, Block Todaraisingh, District Tonk,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Secretariat Jaipur
Rajasthan.
2. Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Directorae Of
Secondary Education, Bikaner Rajasthan.
3. District Education Officer (Secondary), Tonk, Rajasthan.
4. District Education Officer (Secondary), Banswara,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Anirudh Kothari
Mr. Ramdev Potalia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
02/02/2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Special Appeal (Writ) has been filed against
order dated 16.12.2025 passed by learned Single Bench of this
Court whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has
been disposed of.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present appeal are that the
appellant is working on the post of Principal (equivalent) in the
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:43:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5946-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-1867/2025]
Education Department. Vide order dated 23.11.2025, the
appellant was transferred from PM Shri Govt. Girls Senior
Secondary School, Todaraisingh, Tonk to PM Shri Govt. Senior
Secondary School, Arthuna, Banswara. The petitioner assailed the
validity of his transfer order dated 23.11.2025 by filing the writ
petition.
4. The contention raised before learned Single Bench was that
the transfer order of the appellant has been effected at the
instance of District Vice President of the ruling political party and
therefore, the same was actuated by malafide. There was no
administrative exigency to transfer the appellant from
Todaraisingh, Tonk to Arthuna, Banswara. Learned counsel for the
appellant had submitted that the transferred place is about
380 km away from present place of posting i.e. Todaraisingh. The
learned Single Bench disposed of the writ petition with the
direction that the representation filed by the petitioner may be
considered in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of
Sultan Singh Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.18959/2025 while negating the contention of malafide
as a person against whom the malafide was alleged, was not
impleaded as party in the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has not raised the ground of retirement of the appellant within a
period of two years before the learned Single Bench. However,
learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the
only ground raised before the learned Single Bench is that his
transfer to Arthuna, Banswara has been effected without any
administrative exigency and the same has been effected at the
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:43:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5946-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-1867/2025]
instance of the District Vice President of the ruling party. He
further submits that there are many posts lying vacant at
Todaraisingh therefore, he could not have been transferred from
Todaraisingh, Tonk to Arthuna, Banswara. He therefore, prays
that the present appeal may be allowed and the order dated
16.12.2025 may be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that
in the appeal, although a ground of malafide has been taken
against an office bearer of the ruling party, however, he has not
been impleaded as party respondent in the appeal too. He further
submits that learned Single Bench has rightly rejected the writ
petition on both the grounds agitated before it.
7. Learned AAG submits that in pursuance of the interim order
granted by this Court on 18.12.2025, the appellant has submitted
his joining at Todaraisingh, however, an order of status quo as on
that day i.e. 18.12.2025, with regard to the place of posting was
also passed. Learned AAG further submits that in pursuance of
the transfer order dated 23.11.2025, the appellant was relieved
for joining on the new place of posting, and the incumbent to the
post at Todaraisingh has assumed the charge of office on
24.11.2025 itself. Therefore, in all fairness, the order of status
quo ought to have been honored by the appellant and he ought to
have joined at the place of posting from where he was relieved.
8. Learned AAG submits that even the appellant has not
arrayed the person who has been transferred at his place as party
respondent in the writ petition. Learned AAG further submits that
the appellant is due to retire in the year 2028 therefore, more
than 28 months still remain for his superannuation and therefore,
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:43:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5946-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-1867/2025]
no benefit of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of
Dr. (Mrs.) Pushpa Mehta v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate
Tribunal (Civil Special Appeal No.1430/1999) decided on
16.12.1999 be granted in his favour. He therefore, prays that the
appeal may be dismissed.
9. We have considered the submissions made at Bar and we
have gone through the relevant record.
10. A bare perusal of the transfer order shows that the same has
been passed by the competent authority transferring the
appellant-petitioner from Todaraisingh, Tonk to Arthuna,
Banswara. The allegation in the writ proceedings as well as in the
present appeal is on the office bearer of a political party at whose
behest, the present transfer order has been passed. It is an
admitted position that the office bearer named in Annex.3 has not
been arrayed as party respondent in the writ petition as well as in
the present appeal.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the person against
whom malafide has been alleged is not arrayed as party
respondent then the writ proceedings or the appeal cannot be
entertained on that ground.
12. In view of the above, learned Single Bench has rightly
considered the submissions made before it and negated the same
with respect to the allegations of malafide. As far as the second
allegation that he has been transferred at a place which is about
380 km away from the present place of posting, we are not
impressed by the same as it is the sole prerogative of the State
Government to place/post a person at a place where his services
can be best utilized. A perusal of the transfer order goes to show
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:43:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5946-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-1867/2025]
that a number of officers/employees have been transferred and
therefore, it cannot be said that there was no administrative
exigency in passing the impugned order. Since the appellant has
not pressed the ground of his superannuation within two years
therefore, we are not joining the issue on that aspect.
13. In view of the discussions made above, we find no merits in
the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The interim
order passed by this Court stands vacated.
13. Since the appeal itself has been disposed of, the application
preferred by the applicant for impleadment of party also stands
disposed of.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
37-T.Singh/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:43:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
