IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of transfer orders for university staff, ruling that they do not qualify as government servants and emphasizing limited judicial intervention in administrative transfers.

ORDER :

Sameer Jain, J.

1. With consent of the learned counsel representing the parties the instant petitions are adjudicated jointly by this judgment. The instant judgment shall be applicable on both the petitions of mutatis mutandis basis.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 the services of the petitioners on the post of Assistant Professor (Entomology) were transferred from Rajasthan Agricultural Research Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur to College of Agriculture Kishangarhbas, Alwar (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17205/2024) and College of Agriculture (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17192/2024) Peethampuri Neem Ka Thana, in an arbitrary and illegal manner under the veil of administrative exigencies. It is further submitted that the petitioners are rendering services ever since 07.10.2020, as Assistant Professor (Entomology) – appointed via direct placement/recruitment.

3. Further, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Annexure-3 i.e. State Government letter dated 04.01.2023 and Annexure-5 i.e. letter dated 19.01.2022 and submitted that a blanket ban was imposed upon all the departments under the administrative control of the Government, which includes Nigams, Mandals and Autonomous Institutions like the respondent-University. It is further submitted that respondent-University itself has argued for clarification that whether the said ban will be applicable on them or otherwise and the same is replied by the respondent-State vide letter dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure-5) stating that the said ban shall be applicable on the respondent-University also.

4. Thereafter, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the provisions enshrined under Section 40 and 41 of the Act and Statues of SKN Agriculture University, Jobner (Rajasthan) and has submitted that the vital control over the respondent-University, is in the hands of Government; and the same is made unambiguous by the aforementioned provisions as whenever State Government issues any Service Rules or conditions, then the same shall be deemed amended upto the extent of the said statues.

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners has further averred that as per the rules governing the manner of appointment, the direct recruitment of teachers is ought to be subject to non-transfer for a period of 5 years. Moreover, the registrars and other officers posted at various notable posts are also appointed by the State Government from candidates belong atleast to Rajasthan Administrative Services cadre.

6. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is passed after sans application of mind. In support of the contentions made insofar learned counsel has placed reliance upon Statute No. 6 Clause (3) (v) and has further submitted that the petitioner(s) ought not to be transferred within a period of five years, especially at a place where no vacancy on Assistant Professor in the said field/branch/subject is available. Hence, it can be deduced that the impugned transfer order is made without consideration of vital aspects of circumstances moreover, in an arbitrary manner bypassing the erstwhile Rules and letters issued/circulated by the State Government.

7. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-University has drawn the attention of this Court on the definition of “Government servant” under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 more particularly on Section 2 (c) which defines Government Servant. While placing reliance upon the same, it is submitted that respondent-University and their employees do not fall under the ambit of the definition of “Government servant” as per the Act of 1976, moreover, if momentarily it is assumed that the petitioners fall under the said definition of government servant then the Service Tribunal would be the appropriate forum for raising grievances.

8. Learned counsel has further relied upon the provisions enshrined under Section 26 and 40 of the