Amita Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14078)
2026 Latest Caselaw 4568 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 4568 Raj
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Amita Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14078) on 25 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:14078]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6379/2026

Amita Purohit D/o Shri Vijay Prakash Purohit W/o Late Shri
Suresh Vyas, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of D-228F,
Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Secondary
         Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.       The District Education Officer (Hq), Secondary Education,
         Bikaner.
4.       Prprincipal, Government Girls Senior Secondary School,
         Gurudwara Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5.       Madan Lal Karwasra, Lecturer Sanskrit, Presently Working
         At Shahid Gunner Shri Mukesh Bhaskar Government
         Senior Secondary School, Bhukhreri, Churu, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Pramendra Bohra.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore.
                                 Mr. Praveen Choudhary.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

25/03/2026

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging transfer order

dated 10.01.2026, whereby petitioner, who was working as

Lecturer (Sanskrit) at Government Girls Senior Secondary School,

Gurudwara Rani Bazar, Bikaner, has been transferred to

Government Senior Secondary School, Napasar Sinthal Road,

Bikaner, which is approximately 70 kms. away from her earlier

place of posting.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:02:38 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14078] (2 of 5) [CW-6379/2026]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a

widow lady and solely responsible for taking care of her 5 year old

son and her aged father in law. It is thus submitted that her

transfer to a place 70 kms. away will cause undue hardship to her

as well as her family members.

3. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon transfer guidelines

dated 14.07.2022 issued by Respondent Department, specifically

Condition No. 5 of said guidelines, which provides that a widow /

divorcee / female suffering from any serious disease should not

ordinarily be relieved from her place of posting. It is further

submitted that these facts were taken into account

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an appeal

challenging impugned transfer order was preferred before learned

Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, which, after

taking into consideration all the aforementioned facts, vide order

dated 19.01.2026, passed an interim order in favour of petitioner

and issued directions to respondent authorities to consider and

decide representation of petitioner. It is contended that

representation of petitioner has not been considered by

respondent department in an objective and sympathetic manner

and has been rejected by passing a non-speaking and unreasoned

order.

5. It is also contended that petitioner has been transferred only

with a view to accommodate respondent no. 5 in her place. It is

further averred that in various other similar cases, where

directions were issued by Learned Tribunal to consider the

representations of aggrieved employees, respondent No. 2 have

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:02:38 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14078] (3 of 5) [CW-6379/2026]

decided the representations in a similar manner, by passing non-

speaking orders.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the transfer has been made on account of administrative exigency,

and since petitioner has been transferred only at a distance of 70

kms., present is not a fit case to warrant interference.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

8. A perusal of the record shows that Guidelines dated

14.07.2022 issued by the respondent department stipulates

certain conditions regulating transfer of employees in the

education department. Condition No. 5 of said guidelines reads as

under:

";fn LFkkukUrfjr LFkku ij dk;Zjr dkfeZd fo/kok@ifjR;drk@n`f"Vghu@ nksuksa iSjks ls fnO;kax@xaHkhj chekjh ¼dSUlj] cszu V~;wej] xqnkZ izR;kjksi.k½@ifjoh{kk/khu dkfeZd ,oa lsok fuo`fr esa ,d o'kZ "ks'k jgus okyh Jsf.k;ksa esa vk jgk gSa rks dkfeZd dk LFkkukUrj.k ugha fd;k tkosaA ;fn LFkkukUrfjr dkfeZd dk;ZeqDr gksdj vkrk gSa rks mls dk;Zxzg.k ugha djk;k tkosaA "

A bare reading of the provision makes it clear transfer of a

widow should not be effected in a routine or casual manner, that

too, merely to accommodate another person at her place of

posting. Undisputed facts of the case clearly shows that petitioner

is a widow lady and the only person responsible for taking care of

her son and aged father in law.

9. In such circumstances, it cannot be denied that transfer of

petitioner to a place 70 kms. away is likely to cause severe

hardship not only to petitioner but also to her family members.

10. This Court is also not satisfied with the manner in which

respondent no. 2 has dealt with the representation submitted by

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:02:38 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14078] (4 of 5) [CW-6379/2026]

petitioner. This Court has come across several other such matters

whereby representations of similarly situated employees are

rejected by passing such cyclostyled orders, which cannot be

countenanced.

11. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that

respondent No. 2 has dealt with petitioner's representation with a

predetermined mind and has failed to examine the same in an

objective fair and sympathetic manner. The peculiar facts and

circumstances of petitioner's case have not received due

consideration, neither have the guidelines dated 14.07.2022 been

considered.

12. Consequently, present writ petition deserves to be, and is,

hereby allowed. Order dated 13.03.2026 rejecting petitioner's

representation is quashed and set aside.

13. Petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation raising

all ground available to her in challenge to the transfer order within

a period of 15 days from today. Upon receipt of such

representation, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the

same afresh, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a

reasoned and speaking order, while duly taking into account the

peculiar facts of the petitioner's case as well as the guidelines

dated 14.07.2022, with a period of 30 days thereafter. Respondent

No. 2 shall also explore possibilities of placing petitioner at a

nearby place.

14. Accordingly, instant writ petition stands disposed of.

15. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, effect and

operation of the impugned order dated 10.01.2026, insofar as it

relates to petitioner, shall remain stayed, and respondents are

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 12:02:38 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14078] (5 of 5) [CW-6379/2026]

directed to permit the petitioner to discharge her services at her

earlier place of posting.