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

2026 Supreme(Raj) 260

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Poonam Singhal, W/o. Shri Hemraj Bhargave - Petitioner 
Versus 
State of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan – Respondent 
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8556 of 2026
Decided On : 18-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishal Kumar.

Transfer is an incident of service and employees have no right to a specific posting. Spouse transfer policies are directory rather than mandatory and do not apply when spouses belong to distinct service cadres governed by different rules and transfer requirements.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Transfer - Administrative Exigency - Transfer is an incident of service and no employee can claim a particular place of posting as a matter of right. Administrative instructions or policies regarding transfer are directory in nature and are to be applied in the context of facts. (Paras 7, 8)

(B) Service Law - Spouse Policy - Applicability - Where spouses are governed by entirely different service conditions, cadres, and recruitment rules, the spouse policy mandating posting at the same or nearby location cannot be enforced to equate the two. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a government employee, challenged an inter-district transfer order, seeking relief on the grounds of the spouse policy, contending that her husband, also a government employee, was posted in a different district. A previous order had directed the authorities to consider the representation, which was subsequently rejected on the grounds that the petitioner and her spouse belonged to different service cadres governed by distinct rules and that the petitioner as a senior officer was subject to state-wide transfer liability.

Findings of Court:
The court found that transfer is an administrative prerogative, and administrative guidelines are not absolute mandates. The court further noted that because the petitioner and her spouse belong to different categories of service with distinct rules of movement, they cannot be equated for the purpose of a spouse-based posting request.

Issues: Whether the spouse policy is mandatory and whether the petitioner is entitled to a specific posting based on the location of her spouse even when they belong to different service cadres.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer is an inherent incident of employment and rests within the discretion of the state based on administrative exigencies. Spouse policies are directory in nature and do not override the operational necessities of service, especially when the spouses are governed by fundamentally different regulatory frameworks and service conditions.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to an administrative transfer order. (Para 1)
2. spouse posting policy versus service requirements. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. transfer is an inherent administrative incident. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. policy instructions do not override administrative necessity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

Order :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By way of filing the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 22.09.2025, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Jheegar Chhoti, Sikar to Government Senior Secondary School, Kalyansar, Churu. He has also assailed the order dated 01.05.2026, whereby representation filed by the petitioner against transfer order, in compliance of order dated 25.11.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. CWP No. 18086/2025 has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding the post of Principal in Government Senior Secondary School and her husband Bhanwar Lal Dhayal is also on the post of Senior Teacher and is posted in District Sikar therefore, in the light of spouse policy of respondent-Government, an endeavor should be made to post both husband and wife either on the same place or at nearest places.

3. Learned counsel submits that by ignoring the policy of the Government, the petitioner was transferred in another District vide order dated 22.09.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.B. CWP No. 18086/2025 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Competent Authority with further directions to the authority to decide the representation and till decision of the representation, operation of transfer order dated 22.09.2025 was stayed and petitioner was also granted liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition, in case, the representation is decided against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 25.11.2025, the petitioner filed representation before the Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner specifically mentioning therein that since, her husband is also a Government servant and is working in respondent-Department therefore, in view of spouse policy of the Government, transfer order be modified and the petitioner be posted in the same district so as to avoid any inconvenience to family of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel submits that ignoring the policy of the Government, in quite mechanical manner, the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 01.05.2026 and the grounds raised by the petitioner have not been objectively considered.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that petitioner is holding the post of Principal which is post of State service and therefore, she can be subjected to transfer anywhere in the territory of State of Rajasthan, whereas husband of the petitioner is simply a Senior Teacher and ordinarily a Senior Teacher is not transferred out of zone. Under such circumstances, policy of the Government that endeavour should be made to post both husband and wife, in case, both are in Government service at nearest places, was taken into consideration and looking to the fact that the petitioner is holding the post of State servant and is governed by Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970, and her husband is an employee of subordinate service and is governed by Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, and the service conditions qua posting of both husband and wife, being altogether different, respondents have rightly decided representation of the petitioner vide impugned order. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise, distance between Sikar and Churu is not substantial, as the two districts are quite nearby, hence, no significant inconvenience is likely to be caused to the petitioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material record.

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