Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2318 (RAJ)

Rameshwar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-08-27

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 18.08.2022 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sriganganagar to Jodhpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order has been passed with the purpose to adjust the private respondent who has been transferred in his place from Jodhpur to Sriganganagar. She further submitted that a perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the transfer of the private respondent has been made at her request as no TA/DA has been shown to be made payable to her. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned does not specify that the same has been passed in any administrative exigency and therefore also, the same is bad in eyes of law. 3. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2003(1) WLN 63 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order impugned pertains to the transfer of 291 employees and therefore, no malafides can be imputed for transfer of the present petitioner. He submitted that the private respondent belongs to Sriganganagar and was posted at Jodhpur since 2015. Therefore, now after a period of seven years, at her request she had been transferred to her home district i.e. Sriganganagar. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he belongs to Sriganganagar and had been serving at Sriganganagar since 2015 or even prior to that. Learned counsel also submitted that in the year 2018, the petitioner was also transferred within Sriganganagar at his own request. Therefore, in the public interest the State is duty bound to consider the request of all the employees and decide on the basis of the priorities and the tenure completed by a particular employee at one place of posting. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear on record that the petitioner has been posted within Sriganganagar district since the year 2015. As submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, he had also been transferred at his own request in the year 2018. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear on record that the petitioner has been posted within Sriganganagar district since the year 2015. As submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, he had also been transferred at his own request in the year 2018. Therefore, an employee cannot, as a matter of right, claim that he has to be posted in a particular district and that too, his home district for the complete tenure of his services. In Ajay Kumar Sharma's case (supra), the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner too, it has been concluded by the Court as under: "19. Thus, on transfer, it can be concluded: (1) That transfer is an incident of service and it does not require the consent of the employee. (2) That a public servant has no vested right to seek transfer to a location of his choice. (3) That transfer can be made on administrative exigencies and in public interest. (4) That transfer can be made for good and efficient administration. (5) That continued posting at one station is not conducive to good administration." 7. The Court specifically held that the continued posting at one place is not conducive to good administration. The said clause is clearly applicable in the present matter as the petitioner is posted at his home district since 2015. Moreover, transfer is an implied condition of service and the power is always vested in the State Department to transfer an employee in administrative exigency. So far as the power to interfere in transfer Orders is concerned, the law on the point is no more res integra. 8. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5418 of 1990, decided on 19.11.1990) reported in (1991) IILLJ 591 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are 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 malafide. 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. 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 over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders." 9. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Gobardhan Lal and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 408 & 409 of 2004, decided on 23.03.2004) reported in (2004) IIILLJ 749 SC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "7. It is too late in the day for any Government Servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. 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 contra in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision." 10. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6207 of 2004, decided on 20.09.2004) reported in (2004) 12 SCC 299 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by malafide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see Ambani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa 1995(6) SCALE 41 . Unless the order of transfer is visited by malafide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it." 11. In the present matter, a bare perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the same is not a simplicitor transfer order of any one or two specific employees. The same is a transfer order pertaining to 291 employees which cannot be termed to be passed for any reason other then administrative exigency. 12. In view of the above observations, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. However, keeping into the fact the distance of 500 kms from Sriganganagar to Jodhpur, the petitioner may file a representation before the respondent-authorities to re-consider his place of posting. The respondent-authorities may consider and decide the same within a period of two weeks from the date of the present order. 13. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. 14. Stay petition also stands disposed of.