Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Jitendar Kumar Chaudhary S/o Jitendra Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Jaipur & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15085 of 2019
Decided On : 02-01-2020
For the Petitioner: Mr. Devendra Khatri.
For the Respondent:Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. K.S. Lodha.
Transfer is an incidence of service and the Government can take detour, considering administrative exigency.
Headnote:
TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE - MANAGER GRADE-I - POSTING TO CIRCUIT HOUSE - ORDER DATED 01.11.2012 - AMENDMENT - MANAGER GRADE-II - STATUTORY FORCE - MALAFIDE - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL - TRANSFER INCIDENCE OF SERVICE - ADMINISTRATIVE EXIGENCY - GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 31.01.2019 - DELETION OF NOTE NO.1 - NO SUBSISTING RIGHT TO CONTINUE ON A PARTICULAR PLACE OF POSTING - NO INFRACTION OF STATUTORY RULE - NO LOSS OR INJURY TO THE PETITIONER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Manager Grade-I, challenged his transfer from Circuit House Jodhpur to Circuit House, Pali, arguing that he cannot be transferred to a place where the Circuit House is required to be managed by Manager Grade-II, as per Government order dated 01.11.2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order dated 01.11.2012 is not statutory and hence, can neither be treated mandatory nor can the same be enforced. The court also noted that the petitioner himself was posted at Jodhpur, a Circuit House meant to be headed by a Manager Grade-I, before his promotion to Manager Grade-I in 2019, and that the order dated 01.11.2012 has been amended by the respondent State vide its recent order dated 31.10.2019, and the note appended has been obliterated.
Issues: 1. Whether the order dated 01.11.2012 is statutory and mandatory? 2. Whether the petitioner has a subsisting right to continue on a particular place of posting? 3. Whether there is any malafide or infraction of statutory rule in the transfer order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order dated 01.11.2012 is not statutory and hence, can neither be treated mandatory nor can the same be enforced. 2. The petitioner has no subsisting right to continue on a particular place of posting. 3. There is no malafide or infraction of statutory rule in the transfer order.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.09.2019, vide which he has been transferred from Circuit House Jodhpur to Circuit House, Pali.
2. The premise on which the petitioner has challenged such transfer order is that the petitioner, a Manager Grade-I cannot be transferred to station/place, where the Circuit House are required to be managed by Manager Grade-II.
3. Mr. Devendra Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards Note No.1 appended with the order dated 01.11.2012 issued by the State Government and contended that at the Divisional Headquarters; Rajasthan House; Jodhpur House; Circuit House/Guest House; Rajasthan State Guest House; Delhi; are required to be managed by Managers Grade-I, and in the same lines Managers Grade-I cannot be posted to a place other than those earmarked for Manager Grade-I.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, argued that petitioner’s transfer from Circuit House, Jodhpur to Circuit Pali is arbitrary and contrary to Government order dated 01.11.2012 and hence, liable to be quashed.
5. Mr. Khatri relied upon judgment of this court in Dr. Arun Chauhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2005) 2 WLC 719 to lend support to petitioner’s cause.
6. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent State at the outset argued that the transfer is an incidence of service and contended that the order dated 01.11.2012 is only administrative in nature. He submitted that the stipulation made in the order dated 01.11.2012, issued by the State Government is having no statutory force behind it and since it was issued for administrative exigencies, it cannot be said to be mandatory.
7. It was also argued that prior to his promotion to the post of Manager Grade-I in the year 2019, petitioner himself was posted at Jodhpur, which post is purportedly meant for Manager Grade-I. He submitted that since the order dated 01.11.2012 is having no statutory force, the State can take detour, considering administrative exigency.
8. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 he urged that the High Court should not interfere in the matters relating to transfer until and unless there is a breach of statutory rules or allegations of malafide.
9. While maintaining that the order dated 01.11.2012 is not mandatory, it was pointed out that the same has been amended by the State Government and vide Government order dated 31.01.2019, note No.1 appended with the order dated 01.11.2012 has been deleted.
10. In light of the subsequent amendment, Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate General argued that even if it is assumed that there is some deviation from the order of the State Government dated 01.11.2012 the petitioner cannot claim it as a matter of right that he be posted at place meant for manager Grade-I, as the Government Order dated 01.11.2012 has been amended and note No.1 deleted.
11. Heard.
12. Argument advanced by Mr. Khatri that Pali is not a Divisional Headquarter and the Circuit House at Pali is not required to be manned by Manager Grade-I, hence petitioner cannot be posted at Pali, appears to be attractive. However, a deeper probe into the factual and legal matrix shows that order dated 01.11.2012 is not statutory and hence, can neither be treated mandatory nor can the same be enforced.
13. The petitioner himself was posted at Jodhpur – a Circuit House meant to be headed by a Manager Grade-I before he was promoted from Manager Grade-II to Manger Grade-I in the year 2019 itself. It does not, therefore, lie in the mouth of at least the petitioner to raise a grievance that he being a Manager Grade-I cannot be posted to a smaller town, as he himself had been a beneficiary of the deviation from the subject order dated 01.11.2012.
14. That apart, the order dated 01.11.2012 has been amended by the respondent State vide its rece
