Transfer of an employee is an exigency of service and should not be interfered with unless it is mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

1. Although, the matter comes up on applications no.1/2022 & 2/2022 filed by the respondents seeking vacation of ex parte interim order dated 19.09.2022; but, on the request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition is heard on its merit at this stage.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner, an Executive Engineer, has been transferred vide order impugned dated 03.09.2022 from Jaipur to Sri Ganganagar which is subject matter of challenge.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4, who has been transferred vice him, is facing a departmental enquiry and hence, in view of the Circular dated 23.07.2003 issued by the State Government through Department of Personnel, he could not have been given field posting. He submits that only two and half years are left in petitioner's attaining the age of superannuation. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been transferred thrice during the period of last eleven months and hence, the transfer order is liable to be interfered by this Court. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order dated 03.09.2022 be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the official respondent submits that the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board is an autonomous statutory body established in exercise of powers under Section 22A of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 and the Circulars issued by the State Government through Department of Personnel are not binding upon it. Inviting attention of this Court towards the P.W.D. Manual Vol.-1 (General) annexed with reply, learned counsel submits that the posting of respondent no.4 as Executive Engineer (Quality Control) is not a field posting. He submits that there has been no violation of any statutory rule while transferring the petitioner and hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that this Court has, vide its order dated 29.03.2022 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4464/2022: Pyare Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., stayed the charge-sheet issued to him. He also submits that the transferred place cannot be reckoned as field posting as it does not involve direct contact with the public. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submits that the circulars issued by the State Government from time to time are binding upon the respondent-Board also. Inviting attention of this Court towards the minutes of meeting dated 22.10.2021, learned counsel submits that the Board has decided not to give the respondent no.4 field posting. He prays for allowing the writ petition.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. It is trite law that transfer is an exigency of service and no employee can claim a vested right to remain posted at the particular place. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. v. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr.: (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 Hi