Court upheld the principle that employees in government service do not have an inherent right to remain in a specific location, allowing for administrative transfers.

Order :

1. Petitioner herein seeks quashing of order dated 19.07.2024 (Annex.8) passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, vide which, his appeal against an office order dated 12.07.2024 (Annex.5) transferring the private respondent in his place, was dismissed.

2. During the pendency of writ proceedings, a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 29.07.2024 staying the implementation of the transfer order. Same being apposite is reproduced hereinbelow:

“1. Issue notice, returnable on 12.09.2024. Issue notice of stay petition also.

2. Heard on stay application.

3. Vide Annexure 2, the petitioner's appointment on deputation was made at Swami Vivekanand Government Model School, Pichiyak, Bilara and since then he was rendering his services there. Vide order dated 12.07.2024 (annexure 5), one Geeta Sharma has been directed to be posted at Swami Vivekanand Government Model School, Pichiyak, Bilara, however, the predicament of the petitioner would be that neither there is any order regarding repatriation, posting, transfer or work arrangement with regard to the status of the petitioner nor is there any order keeping him await posting. Thus, a serious anomalous situation has arisen. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is ordered that till the next date of hearing, the petitioner shall not be relieved from his present place of posting i.e., Swami Vivekanand Government Model School, Pichiyak, Bilara.”

3. Aforesaid stay order continues to subsist in favor of the petitioner till date.

4. Transfers are a standard and integral aspect of government employment conditions. Employees do not possess an inherent right to demand continuation of their service at a specific location.

5. This Court ordinarily refrains from intervening in transfer matters, acknowledging administrative needs for employees to fulfill their duties at assigned locations.

6. In the instant case, given the duration of the interim protection granted by this court, its utility appears to have waned over time.

7. Be that as it may, the interim order is made absolute, but with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders in future, if necessary due to administrative exigency.

8. In the parting, it is made clear that granting liberty to pass fresh orders is not to be construed as a direction of this Court to necessarily pass fresh orders in case there is no such requirement otherwise.

9. Disposed of as above.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.