Vijay Singh Son Of Shri Chiranjilal v. State Of Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 206/2022 Vijay Singh Son Of Shri Chiranjilal, Aged About 59 Years AndOne Month, Resident Of 18, Income Tax Colony, Jagatpura Road,Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, PublicWorks Department, Government Of Rajasthan,Government Secretariat, Jaipur.Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan,Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Joint Secretary, Public Works Department, Rajasthan,Secretariat, Jaipur.Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Dariyav Singh, Posted In Place Of Petitioner In PublicWorks Division, Phulera, District Jaipur.Works Division, Phulera, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal For Respondent(s): Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma Mr. Ankit Agarwal Mr. Prashant Vijay with Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH 15/03/2022 Order Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitionerchallenging the transfer order dated 22.11.2021, whereby thepetitioner has been transferred from PWD Division, Phulera toHead Office, Jaipur. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is goingto retire in the month of November, 2022 and prayed for quashingof the transfer order dated 22.11.2021. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of Indiaand Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 hasheld as under:- “3.The High Court, in interfering with the orderof transfer, has relied on two circumstances.Firstly, the High Court has noted that as aresult of the stay on the order of transfer, theheadquarters of the respondent will remain atMumbai and even if he is to be suspended, hisheadquarters will continue to remain atMumbai. The second reason, which wasweighed with the High Court, is that thespouse of the respondent suffers from acardiac ailment and is obtaining medicaltreatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither ofthese reasons can furnish a valid justificationfor the High Court to take recourse to itsextraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution in passing an order ofinjunction of this nature. Significantly, the HighCourt has not even found a prima facie case tothe effect that the order of transfer was eithermala fide or in breach of law. The High Courtcould not have dictated to the employer as towhere the respondent should be posted duringthe period of suspension. Individual hardshipsare matters for the Union of India, as anemployer, to take a dispassionate view.4.However, we are categorically of the viewthat the impugned order of the High Courtinterfering with the order of transfer was inexcess of jurisdiction and an improper exerciseof judicial power. We are constrained toobserve that the impugned order has beenpassed in breach of the settled principles andprecedents which have consistently beenenunciated and followed by this Court. Themanner in which judicial power has beenexercised by the High Court to stall a lawfulorder of transfer is disquieting. We express ourdisapproval”. 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, where in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10, it has been held as under:- 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, where in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10, it has been held as under:- “8. A Government Servant has no vested rightto remain posted at a place of his choice norcan he insist that he must be posted at oneplace or the other. He is liable to betransferred in the administrative exigenciesfrom one place to the other. Transfer of anemployee is not only an incident inherent inthe terms of appointment but also implicit asan essential condition of service in the absenceof any specific indication to the contrary. NoGovernment can function if the GovernmentServant insists that once appointed or postedin a particular place or position, he shouldcontinue in such place or position as long ashe desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal;SCC P.406 para 7). 9. The courts are always reluctant ininterfering with the transfer of an employeeunless such transfer is vitiated by violation ofsome statutory provisions or suffers from malafides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar & Ors.1,this Court held : (SCC p.661, para 4) "4. In our opinion, the courts shouldnot interfere with a transfer orderwhich is made in public interest and foradministrative reasons unless thetransfer orders are made in violation ofany mandatory statutory rule or on theground of mala fide. A governmentservant holding a transferable post hasno vested right to remain posted at oneplace or the other, he is liable to betransferred from one place to the other.Transfer orders issued by thecompetent authority do not violate anyof his legal rights. Even if a transferorder is passed in violation of executiveinstructions or orders, the courtsordinarily should not interfere with theorder instead affected party shouldapproach the higher authorities in thedepartment. If the courts continue tointerfere with day-to- day transferorders issued by the government andits subordinate authorities, there will becomplete chaos in the administrationwhich would not be conducive to publicinterest. The High Court overlookedthese aspects in interfering with thetransfer orders.” 10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India, this Courtreiterated that : (SCC p. 103; para 6)\“6. …the scope of judicial review in matters oftransfer of a Government Servant to anequivalent post without adverse consequenceon the service or career prospects is verylimited being confined only to the grounds ofmala fides or violation of any specificprovision....” This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner is a Government employee and he cannot claim to serve at a particular place of hischoice, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India & Rajendra Singh (both supra); secondly, the petitioner has been transferred within thesame District, therefore, in my considered view, no case is madeout for interference by this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. In that view of the matter, this writ petition standsdismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of. (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /92