1. Challenge to transfer order of petitioner who is a Principal, and dismissal of his representation despite spouse policy. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 262
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Rajeev Kumar, S/o. Shri Rajendra Prasad Gurawa - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8551 of 2026
Decided On : 18-05-2026
Important Points
Transfer is an incident of service and administrative policies are directory. A state service employee, subject to statewide transfer, cannot equate their posting conditions with a subordinate service employee to challenge a legitimate administrative transfer under a spouse policy.
Subject
Service Law - Transfer
Act Referred
Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970
Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971
Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Transfer - Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 and Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 - Transfer is an incident of service and no employee can claim to be posted at a particular place for all times; the State is entitled to transfer any employee based on administrative exigency (Para 7) - Administrative instructions regarding transfers are merely directory in nature and their application depends on the facts of the case (Para 8).
(B) Spouse Policy - Applicability - Where one spouse holds a state service post liable for transfer anywhere within the territory of the state and the other spouse holds a subordinate service post that is ordinarily not transferred out of the district, the service conditions are fundamentally different - Such circumstances preclude equating the two positions for the purpose of mandatory posting at the same or nearest place under a spouse policy (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
A state service employee holding the post of Principal was transferred from one district to another. The employee challenged the transfer and the subsequent rejection of his representation, arguing that the government's spouse policy requires husband and wife to be posted at the same or nearest places, noting that his wife, a Grade III teacher in a subordinate service, was posted in the original district.
Findings of Court:
The court found no error in the transfer order or the order rejecting the representation. It held that the petitioner, as a state service employee, is subject to transfer across the state, whereas the spouse, being in a subordinate service, is not. Consequently, their service conditions regarding posting are different.
Issues: Whether the transfer of a state service employee to another district violates the government spouse policy when the spouse is a subordinate service employee posted in the original district.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer is an incident of service, and administrative policies are directory. Since the husband and wife are governed by different service rules (state service versus subordinate service) with differing posting conditions, the husband's case cannot be equated with the wife's for the purpose of resisting a transfer under the spouse policy.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Spouse Policy - Applicability - Where one spouse holds a state service post liable for transfer anywhere within the territory of the state and the other spouse holds a subordinate service post that is ordinarily not transferred out of the district, the service conditions are fundamentally different - Such circumstances preclude equating the two positions for the purpose of mandatory posting at the same or nearest place under a spouse policy (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
A state service employee holding the post of Principal was transferred from one district to another. The employee challenged the transfer and the subsequent rejection of his representation, arguing that the government's spouse policy requires husband and wife to be posted at the same or nearest places, noting that his wife, a Grade III teacher in a subordinate service, was posted in the original district.
Findings of Court:
The court found no error in the transfer order or the order rejecting the representation. It held that the petitioner, as a state service employee, is subject to transfer across the state, whereas the spouse, being in a subordinate service, is not. Consequently, their service conditions regarding posting are different.
Issues: Whether the transfer of a state service employee to another district violates the government spouse policy when the spouse is a subordinate service employee posted in the original district.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer is an incident of service, and administrative policies are directory. Since the husband and wife are governed by different service rules (state service versus subordinate service) with differing posting conditions, the husband's case cannot be equated with the wife's for the purpose of resisting a transfer under the spouse policy.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- service law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishal Kumar
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishal Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks transfer modification based on spouse policy; respondent argues different service rules for State and subordinate employees. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Transfer is an incident of service. Administrative instructions are directory. Petitioner's case cannot be equated with wife's. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. An employee in State service can be transferred anywhere; subordinate service employee's posting is district-bound. Spouse policy not absolute. (Para 8 )
5. Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit and substance. Pending applications also disposed of. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Can a State government employee claim a posting at a particular place based on spouse policy?
No. Transfer is an incident of service and administrative instructions on spouse posting are directory, not mandatory. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Can a Principal in State service be equated with a Teacher Grade III in subordinate service for posting purposes?
No. A Principal in State service can be transferred anywhere in the State, while a Teacher Grade III is generally not transferred out of district. (Para 5 )
8. Is the court's power of judicial review against a transfer order limited?
Yes, unless the transfer is malafide or violates statutory rules, courts do not interfere as it is an administrative exigency. (Para 7 , 10 )
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, Bosana, Sikar to Government Senior Secondary School, Kikasar, Churu. He has also assailed the order dated 23.04.2026, whereby representation filed by the petitioner against transfer order, in compliance of order dated 04.11.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. CWP No. 16793/2025 has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding the post of Principal in Senior Secondary School and his wife Smt. Chandrakanta is also on the post of Teacher Grade III 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. 16793/2025 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 04.11.2025 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 04.11.2025, the petitioner filed representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner specifically mentioning therein that since, his wife 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 23.04.2026 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, he can be subjected to transfer anywhere in the territory of State of Rajasthan. Whereas wife of the petitioner is simply a Teacher Grade III and ordinarily a Teacher Grade III is not transferred out of District. 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 his wife 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 dated 23.04.2026. 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.
7. It is settled proposition of law that transfer is an incident of service and no one can claim to be posted a particular place for all times to come. It is well within the ambit of State to transfer any of its employee of its as per administrative exigency.
8. It is equally well-settled that admini
