[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6774) on 5 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:6760]                                                      [CW-879/2026]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 879/2026

Radha D/o Shri Gopal Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of
Village Karanpura, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh. At
Present Working As School Lecturer (Geography) Posted At P.M.
Shri Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhadra District
Hanumangarh.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, through Secretary Department Of
         Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.       The Joint Director, School Education Bikaner Division,
         Bikaner.
4.       District Education                 (Headquarter),              Secondary,
         Hanumangarh.
5.       Chief Block        Education           Officer,         Bhadra,    District
         Hanumangarh.
6.       Shri  Sanjeev          Beniwal,           MLA           Bhadra,    District
         Hanumangarh.
7.       Ramesh, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Guda Sursingh,
         District Pali
                                                                   ----Respondents

                            Connected With

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 895/2026

 Chormal S/o Shri Munshi Ram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident
 Of Village Dholpalia, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh. At
 Present Working As School Lecturer (Maths) Posted At P.M. Shri
 Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
                                                                     ----Petitioner

                                     Versus

 1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of
          Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
 2.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
 3.       The Joint Director, School Education Bikaner Division,
          Bikaner.
 4.       District Education                (Headquarter),             Secondary,
          Hanumangarh.
 5.       Chief Block  Education                Officer,         Bhadra,    District
          Hanumangarh.
 6.       Shri Sanjeev           Beniwal,          MLA           Bhadra,    District
          Hanumangarh.
 7.       Rajendra   Singh,      School       Lecturer       (Maths)       Mahatma

                      (Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:55:17 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:6760]                      (2 of 12)                          [CW-879/2026]


          Gandhi Govt. School, Ward No.4, Rawatsar District
          Hanumangarh.
                                                                    ----Respondents


               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1736/2026

  Vasna Ram S/o Shri Hansa Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
  Resident Of Kalbiyo Ka Bas, Pratappura Post Virol, Tehsil
  Sanchore District Jalore. At Present Working As School
  Lecturer (History) Posted At Govt. Senior Secondary School,
  Kilwa District Jalore.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
  1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of
           Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
  2.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
  3.       The Joint Director, School Education Jodhpur Division,
           Jodhpur.
  4.       District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
           Education, Jalore.
                                                                    ----Respondents


               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2618/2026

  Rabia Khan W/o Saiyad Mujffar Hussain, Aged About 56 Years,
  R/o 172, Varsha Colony Savina, Udaipur Raj.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
  1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
           School Education Department, Bikaner Raj.
  2.       Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
  3.       Distt. Education Officer, Secondary, Headquator Udaipur
           Raj.
                                                                    ----Respondents

                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 956/2026

   Manohar Ram Bishnoi S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
   Bherajaga Rav Dabliya Ki Dhani, Bishnawas Lohawat, Tehsil
   Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Presently Posted At
   Govt. Senior Secondary School, Lohawat)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
   1.      The State Of Rajasthan, through Its Principal Secretary,
           Department Of School Education, Government Of


                         (Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)
                        (Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:55:17 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:6760]                   (3 of 12)                          [CW-879/2026]



           Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
   2.      Joint Secretary, Education, Government(Group - 2),
           Government     Of   Rajasthan   Secretariat, Jaipur,
           Rajasthan.
   3.      Director,  Secondary     Education,                   Government     Of
           Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
   4.      Ramesh Kumar, Working at Govt. Senior Secondary
           School, Banor Block, Sunel Jhalawar, District Jhalawar.
                                                                  ----Respondents


                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2203/2026
    Lal Chand S/o Shri Panna Ram, Aged About 57 Years,
    Resident Of Buchawas, Tehsil Taranagar District Churu. At
    Present Working As School Lecturer (Hindi) Posted At Shahid
    Pithuram, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Kohina District
    Churu.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
    1.      State Of Rajasthan, through Secretary Department Of
            Education, Govt. of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
    2.      The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
    3.      District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
            Education, Churu.
    4.      Subhash Chandra Pareek, School Lecturer, Govt. Senior
            Secondary School, Sadasar, District Churu.
                                                                  ----Respondents


                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2282/2026
     Leela D/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, W/o Shri Narendra, Aged About
     35 Years, R/o Flat No.634, Royal Residency Navalgarh Road,
     Sikar Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
     1.      State Of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary,
             Department Of School Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
             Rajasthan.
     2.      Director, Secondary Education Bikaner Raj.
     3.      District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Sikar
             Rajasthan.
     4.      Principal, Government Senior                   Secondary     School,
             Ramnagar, Sikar Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondents




                      (Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:55:17 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:6760]                    (4 of 12)                            [CW-879/2026]


               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 976/2026

 Gopal Singh Asoliya S/o Goverdhan Singh, Aged About 55
 Years, R/o 203, Nakoda Nagar, Dhauji Ki Bawadi, Bedwas
 Girwa, Udaipur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
 1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Is Secretary To
          Government, School Education Department And
          Language And Library Department And Panchayati Raj
          (Elementary Education) Department, 603, V Floor, Block
          5, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur 302017.

 2.       Director,   Secondary         Education,          Bikaner,      Rajasthan
          334001.
                                                                   ----Respondents


              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1083/2026

  Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Sultan Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
  R/o Village Bhuma Bada, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
  1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
          Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
  2.      Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1090/2026

   Rajpal Meel S/o Shri Sultan Singh Meel, Aged About 41
   Years, R/o Village Badusar, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
   1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
           Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
   2.      Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ramawatar Singh Choudhary
                                 Mr. Siddharth Mandawat
                                 Ms. Vrinda Mandawat
                                 Dr. R.D.S.S. Kharlia
                                 Mr. Mahendra Singh Godara



                       (Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)
                      (Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:55:17 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:6760]                     (5 of 12)                       [CW-879/2026]


                                  Mr. Sarthak Asopa
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
                                  Mr. Rajendra Singh Bhati &
                                  Mr. Yuvraj Singh



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

05/02/2026

1) With the consent of both parties, the matters are taken up

for final hearing. All the above-mentioned writ petitions stand

decided by this common order, as the issue involved is identical.

2) The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the

transfer orders.

3) The grounds urged in the present writ petitions are that

the transfers cannot be effected in the middle of the academic

session and that the petitioners' family members are suffering

from various serious ailments. Additionally, it is contended that a

Coordinate Bench of this Court at the Jaipur Bench, in the case of

Hargovind Meena vs. Secretary, School Education

Department & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17757/2025],

vide order dated 24.11.2025, deprecated the practice of effecting

transfers in the middle of the academic session.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in

a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

1124/2026 (Maina Garhwal vs. State of Rajasthan), vide

order dated 30.01.2026, a Coordinate Bench of this Court at the

Jaipur Bench granted interim orders staying the operation of the

transfers on the ground that they were made in the middle of the

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6760] (6 of 12) [CW-879/2026]

academic session, and the petitioners seek parity with the said

order.

5) It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners that there is no transfer policy in place and that the

transfers were effected before the completion of the academic

session. Further, in the case of Hargovind Meena (cited supra), a

Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur deprecated transfers

made in the middle of the academic session, while following the

judgment rendered in the case of Maina Garhwal (cited supra),

and granted interim orders staying the transfers. Therefore, the

petitioners seek similar treatment by way of grant of interim relief.

6) In support of their contentions, the learned counsels for

the petitioners also relied upon the interim order passed by the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chena Ram

Chaudhary Vs. State of Raj. & Ors, [D.B.Special Appeal (Writ)

No.1556/2025], decided on 18.12.2025, the decision of Apex

Court in the case of Shlpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. Vs. State of

Bihar & Ors., reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, the decision of

this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in the case of Hargvoind

Meena (cited supra) and the interim orders granted by this Court

in the case of Poonam Chand Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan,

[D.B. Speical Appeal (Writ) No.1474/2025], decided on

26.11.2025.

7) Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the grant of

any interim order staying the transfer orders. It is submitted that

the scope of interference of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution is very limited and that the law in this regard is well

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6760] (7 of 12) [CW-879/2026]

settled by the Apex Court. The petitioners have not been able to

make out a case showing that the grounds urged by them fall

within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court so as to

warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution. Therefore, the respondents seek dismissal of the writ

petitions.

8) It is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate

General that the decision in Hargovind Meena's case (cited supra)

pertained to transfers effected in the middle of the academic

session, whereas in the present cases, the transfers were not

made in the middle of the session but at the fag end thereof. It is

submitted that there was no necessity for the transferred

employees to conduct any classes, as the practical examinations

had already been completed and the final examinations were

scheduled to be held in the month of February. In these facts and

circumstances, it cannot be said that the transfers were effected in

the middle of the academic session. Consequently, the ratio laid

down in Hargovind Meena's case has no application to the facts of

the present cases.

9) It is also contended by the learned Additional Advocate

General that the interim order granted in the case of Maina

Garhwal (cited supra) was not treated as a precedent while

considering prayers of a similar nature in nearly 105 writ petitions

by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at the Jaipur Bench, while

dealing with the Maina Garhwal case along with other connected

matters. In support of his case, the learned Additional Advocate

General has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the

case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.L.Abbas, reported in (1993)

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6760] (8 of 12) [CW-879/2026]

4 Supreme Court Cases 357, Pubi Lombi Vs. State of

Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., (2024) 12 Supreme Court cases

292.

10) All the grounds which are urged in the present writ

petitions are common in nature and pertain to the alleged medical

conditions of the petitioners' family members. While some family

members are stated to be suffering from serious ailments, others

are suffering from moderate ailments. The core issue for

consideration is the scope of interference of this Court in matters

relating to transfer. The law in this regard is well settled by the

Apex Court in various judgments concerning the scope of

interference by Constitutional Courts in transfer matters.

11) The Apex Court, in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) (cited

supra), has postulated the grounds on which Article 226 of the

Constitution can be invoked. Two grounds have been laid down,

namely: (i) violation of any statutory provision; and (ii) where the

order suffers from mala fides.

12) The Apex Court, in the case of Pubi Lombi (cited supra),

after considering various judgments, has held that interference

can be made only if the order suffers from mala fides, violates any

statutory provision, or if the transfer is detrimental to the

employee holding a transferable post. It was further clarified that

whenever mala fides are alleged, the parties against whom mala

fides are attributed must be made parties to the proceedings, and

there must be specific pleadings in this regard. None of the

present writ petitions contains specific allegations of mala fides,

nor any parties against whom mala fides are attributed have been

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6760] (9 of 12) [CW-879/2026]

impleaded. It is nobody's case that any statutory violation was

committed while passing the transfer orders, and it is also

nobody's case that the transfers are detrimental to the employees

holding transferable posts

13) This Court in a batch of writ petitions lead by S.B.Civil

Writ Petition No.18959/2025 (Sultan Singh Sahu Vs. State of

Raj. & Anr.), decided by common order dated 16.10.2025, has

referred various judgments of the Apex Court and the rules

dealing with the transfer policy and the effect of any guideline and

circular, and passed the following operative portion of the order:-

"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 given given 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 from disability to make representations. Such representations shall be filed only after joining in the transferred post. Any such representations if filed, the same shall be considered 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".

14) In the case of Hargovind Meena (cited supra), including

Maina Garhwal (cited supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court at

the Jaipur Bench deprecated the practice of transferring an

employee in the middle of an academic session. However, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not been able to

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6760] (10 of 12) [CW-879/2026]

bring to the notice of the Court any law laid down by the Apex

Court that expands the scope of interference of a Constitutional

Court in matters of transfer. In numerous writ petitions, the Apex

Court has deprecated interference in transfer orders without due

consideration of the circumstances under which such interference

may be warranted. The petitioners have also relied upon various

interim orders passed in other writ petitions by Division Benches

as well as Single Benches; however, such orders are only interim

in nature and were passed based on the specific facts of those

cases.

15) In Maina Garhwal's case, the Coordinate Bench of this

Court at Jaipur Bench stayed the transfer orders of employees

similarly situated to the petitioners. However, while considering

similar writ petitions filed by other employees, such benefit was

not extended to them. It is needless to say that interim orders

cannot be treated as precedent. Where the law regarding the

scope of interference in transfer matters is clear, this Court cannot

expand the scope of judicial review to interfere with transfers

which are made in the public interest and for administrative

reasons. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to dispose of

all the writ petitions in terms of the operative portions of the order

passed in Sultan Singh Sahu (cited supra).

16) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while

relying upon the case of Hargovind Meena (cited supra),

strenuously contended that the transfer cannot be made in the

midst of the academic session. The facts in that case pertained to

a transfer made in September, which falls in the middle of the

academic session. In the present cases, the transfers have been

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:08:37 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6760] (11 of 12) [CW-879/2026]

made at the fag end of the academic session, i.e., after the

completion of teaching classes and practical examinations, just

before the commencement of final examinations. If the transfers

are stayed at this stage, it would adversely impact the conducting

of the final examinations. Therefore, the ratio in the

aforementioned case is not applicable to the present facts.

17) In the result, the present writ petitions are disposed of in

the same terms as passed in Sultan Singh's case, which is

reiterated as under:

(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 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.