JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present writ petition, while questioning the legality of the order dated 17.02.2020, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to transfer her from District Jaisalmer to her home District, namely District Jhunjhunu.

2. The facts necessary to be borne in mind are that the petitioner a resident of District Jhunjhunu, was appointed as a Teacher by order dated 22.09.2007. She joined her services at Government Primary School, Kalu Singh Ki Dhani, Mulana, Panchayat Samiti Sam, District Jaisalmer on 26.09.2007 and since then, she has been serving in District – Jaisalmer only.

3. The petitioner is presently posted at Government Upper Primary School, Achala, Rasla, Panchayat Samiti Sam, District-Jaisalmer amidst Thar desert, where not only the weather conditions even connectivity & infrastructure pose challenges.

4. The petitioner moved a representation dated 02.09.2019 to the District Elementary Education, Bikaner for her transfer in District Jhunjhunu, where her husband was working as Lower Division Clerk Jhunjhunu, citing that she wished to take care of her aging mother-in-law and two children.

5. The petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16834/2019 with a grievance that her representation was not being considered by the respondents. Said writ petition came to be disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2019, with a direction to the respondents to decide petitioner’s representation in accordance with law.

6. During the pendency of above writ petition, on 11.11.2019, petitioner’s husband passed away.

7. In furtherance of above order dated 16.12.2019 of this Court, the petitioner moved a fresh representation dated 26.12.2019 stating that she had been working in District Jaisalmer since 2007 and pointed out that her husband has passed away. She prayed that she be transferred to District Jhunjhunu in light of the Circular dated 02.04.2018.

8. Petitioner’s representation came to be rejected cursorily by the respondent No.2, inter alia, observing that the Transfer Policy/Circular dated 02.04.2018 contemplates only three situations for inter-districts transfer; viz. (1) the persons suffering from serious ailments such as (i) cancer, (ii) kidney transplant, (iii) heart surgery; (2) blind and (3) 100% physically disabled. According to the respondent No.2, petitioner’s case did not fall under the above categories, hence, her request for inter-district transfer merited rejection.

9. While turning down petitioner’s representation, the respondent No.2 stated that the petitioner is posted in District Jaisalmer and transfer out of such District, was not permissible as per the order of the State Government.

10. Mr. Potalia, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent No.2 has completely misread the Circular/Transfer Policy dated 02.04.2018 issued by the State Government. While highlighting that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2007, he submitted that para No.2.5 of the Circular clearly provides that the teachers who have been appointed prior to 31.12.2008 in the restricted/banned districts will be entitled for inter-district transfers.

11. Mr. Bissa, learned government counsel submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for transfer in view of para Nos.2.2 & 2.3 of the Circular dated 02.04.2018. He submitted that a combined reading of para No.2.3 and 2.4 of the Circular clearly suggests that the teachers who have been appointed before 31.12.2012 are eligible to be transferred within the restricted districts only, that too in the contingencies mentioned in point Nos.1 to 9 of para No.2.4.

12. He added that since category of widow teacher has been mentioned in point No.8 of para No.2.4 of the Circular, the petitioner can be transferred, but only to a district which is restricted/banned district, such as Jaisalmer, Barmer etc. While emphasising that Jhunjhunu is an open area district, he argued that the petitioner