SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 854

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
MAHENDRA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 4414 / 2024



Advocates:
Mr. Sandeep Soni for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG

The court upheld that while transfers are necessary for administrative efficiency, they must comply with established policies regarding tenure at postings.

Headnote:(A) Transfer Policy - Administrative Law - The petitioner challenges the transfer orders dated 22.02.2024 and 23.02.2024, citing violations of transfer policy and improper postings. (Paras 1, 2)

(B) Interim Orders - The Court issued an interim order staying the implementation of the transfer, recognizing the need for a minimum tenure at posting locations. (Paras 3, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was transferred within 13 months of posting, allegedly violating transfer policy. The Court noted issues regarding the posting of another individual in a vacant position.

Findings of Court:
The interim stay on the transfer orders was made absolute, allowing for future administrative orders if necessary.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the transfer order and adherence to the transfer policy.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that transfers are necessary for administrative efficiency, but also recognized the importance of adhering to established policies.

Result: Transfer orders stayed.

Order :

1. Petitioner herein seeks quashing of two orders, i.e. dated 22.02.2024 (Annex.3), vide which, he has been transferred from Bordar Home Guard, Sriganganagar to Home Defence Training Institute, Jodhpur and dated 23.02.2024 (Annex.4), vide which, he was relieved.

2. During the pendency of writ proceedings, a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 15.03.2024 staying the implementation of the transfer order. Same being apposite is reproduced hereinbelow:

“1. While accepting that the petitioner has been relieved on 23.02.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned transfer order dated 22.02.2024 on the following three grounds :-

(i). That while transferring the respondent No.4 on 20.02.2024 at Border Security Force (BSF), Sri Ganganagar, the post had been shown as vacant, whereas as on 20.02.2024, the petitioner was working on the said place.

(ii). That the respondent No.4 is a Deputy Commandant but he has been posted by order dated 20.02.2024 as Battalion Commandant.

(iii). Petitioner’s transfer within a period of 13 months from his posting at Sri Ganganagar on 15.01.2023 is contrary to the transfer policy dated 01.08.2007, in asmuch as no transfer can be effected before completion of two years at a place of posting.

2. Mr. Godara, learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to file reply.

3. In view of the submissions noted above this Court deems it appropriate to stay the effect and operation of order dated 22.02.2024 qua the petitioner, though he has been relieved.

4. Hence, issue notice to the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

5. Notice be served to Additional Advocate General concerned.

6. List this case on 15th April, 2024.

7. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure-3) qua the petitioner so also relieving order dated 23.02.2024 shall remain stayed.”

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top