Transfer decisions may prioritize administrative needs over statutory rights; executive guidelines do not impose enforceable rights upon employees regarding transfer policies.

ORDER :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

1. At the request and with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. All these writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned transfer orders. The facts relating to all these writ petitions reflect that the petitioners are working as Principals. By the impugned transfer orders, they were transferred to new places from their existing places. The transfer order reflects that they were made with an approval of the competent authority.

3. The challenge to the transfer orders were made basically on the grounds of infraction of the transfer policy of the State Government which gives certain priorities in transfer for the specific individuals like persons suffering with disability, cases of spouses, widows, abandoned women, single women, ex- servicemen, outstanding sportsmen, suffering with incurable diseases, dependents of martyrs, personnel working in remote areas, persons underwent by pass surgery or suffering from cancer, kidney transplantation surgery or dialysis, paralysis, the disability of two limbs, blindness etc.

4. Certain transfer orders were also challenged on the ground that the transfer orders were made in violation of the executive instructions relating to transfer policy wherein, a person about to retire within one year or two years should not be transferred.

5. The transfer orders also challenged on the ground that by the executive instructions, certain special priorities are given to the persons who won the medals at State, National and International level by accommodating them in the three preferential places opted by the candidates.

6. The stand taken by the State Government is that the transfers were made keeping in view the administrative exigencies/needs and they are not the regular transfers. The transfer orders were of special nature and the procedure which is required to be followed in the case of general transfers was not required to be adopted in the cases of special transfers. These transfers were effected with a view to rationalise the working pattern of the Principals. It is also the stand of the respondents that though the transfer policy gives certain priorities for special category of persons but those priorities were under the execution instructions and they are only a guidelines. The executive instructions do not confer any enforceable right on the employee to remain in a place when he was holding a transferable post. It is the choice of the employer as to when, where and at what places, the employee is required to be worked.

7. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, who have filed the writ petitions challenging the transfer orders on the ground that as per the transfer policy of the State Government, contend that the persons retiring within one or two years should not be transferred. To support their contentions, they relied on the guidelines and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Smt. Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.: RLW 2000 (1) RAJASTHAN 233 and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Smt. Rani Jain Vs. Secretary and Transport Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6971/2019 decided on 13.05.2019

8. The learned counsels appears for the petitioners who assailed the transfer orders on the ground that the transfer policy gives certain preferences to certain category of persons particularly spouses, persons suffering with cancer or heart surgery and disabilities contend that their cases have to be considered keeping in view the said guidelines. Infraction of the guidelines/the executive instructions would vitiates entire transfers. It is also contended that if the State Government itself framed certain guidelines being the welfare State, it has to follow its own guidelines so as to minimize the hardships of