Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1915 (RAJ)

Rishi Raj Meena v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-06-30

INDERJEET SINGH

body2022
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the respondents whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Nadoti, District Karauli to Panchayat Samiti, Kushalgarh, District Banswara. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not a case of transfer under the administrative exigency and the petitioner has been transferred on the complaint made by the Pradhan (respondent No.4 herein). Counsel further submits that no other person has been posted in place of the petitioner. 3. Counsel relied upon certain orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Ajeet Prasad Vashistha Vs. The Commissioner (S.B. Civil Writs No.23030/2018-order dated 12.10.2018), Ram Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writs No.18420/2019-order dated 07.11.2019), Rishikesh Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15667/2016-order dated 15.11.2016) & Shobha Ram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8214/2022- order dated 22.06.2022). 4. 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 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. 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'. 5. 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 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 La l; 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. 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....' 6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner who is a government employee cannot claim to work at a particular place of his choice, secondly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of U.O.I. & Rajendra Singh (supra), no case is made out for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.