Government servants have no vested right to remain posted at a particular place, and interference with transfer orders should be limited to cases of mala fides or violation of specific provisions.

ORDER

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 08.12.2021 as well as the order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the transfer order was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is working on the post of Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Moti Katla, Jaipur was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Narayana, Jaipur vide order dated 25.09.2021, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal No.4789/2021 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as "Tribunal") in which the learned Tribunal vide order dated 27.10.2021 stayed operation of the order dated 25.09.2021 with liberty to the Department to post the petitioner in District Jaipur without change in the Treasury Office, as only 11 months period was left in the retirement of the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Tribunal, the Department reconsidered case of the petitioner for giving her posting in District Jaipur without change in the Treasury Office and passed the order dated 08.12.2021, by which, the petitioner was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Barodiya, Virat Nagar, District Jaipur on the post of Principal, however, she was not posted in Jaipur block as no post of Principal was lying vacant/available in block Jaipur. The petitioner challenged the order dated 08.12.2021 before the Tribunal by filing appeal No.6267/2021, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.12.2021. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 08.12.2021 has been passed by the respondents in an arbitrary manner and with malafide intention just to accommodate the respondent No.2. Counsel further submits that at the time of filing of appeal, only 11 months' time remained in retirement of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the post of Principal is still lying vacant in Jaipur City, however, the respondents have not adjusted the petitioner in Jaipur, City.

4. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Dr. Smt. Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) WLC (Raj) Page725, where in para No.4, it has been held as under:-

"4. In the instant case, the second respondent is due to retire in January 2001 and the appellant has long to go in service. The Tribunal was of the view that policy of the Government has been that ordinarily, an employee at the verge of retirement, should not be disturbed. It appears that the State Government was also satisfied with the reasoning given by the Tribunal and, therefore, it did not prefer to challenge the said order. It is only the appellant, who is interested in posting at Udaipur, has preferred to challenge the order of the Tribunal. It may be noticed that in the opinion of the Tribunal, the order the transfer was mala fide for the reasons that it has been passed in order to only accommodate the appellant. This finding gets confirmation from the fact that the State Government has chosen not to challenge the order of the Tribunal. Thus, there appears to be no administrative reasons to transfer Dr. (Mrs.) Pushpa Mehta to Udaipur and to disturb Dr. (Mrs.) Shanta Dubey, who is at the verge of retirement. We are of the view that unless there are compelling reasons, ordinarily, an employee should not be disturbed from the place of his/her posting, when he/she is at the verge of retirement. An employee should be given sufficient time, which may be of two years or so to plan peacefully his/her post- retirement life. This can be the legitimate expectation of an employee who has served the Department for major part of his/her life. In exception