Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 31893
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN, J
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Appellant
Versus
PARBAT SINGH JAITAWAT – Respondent
SAW / 1253 / 2024
Mr. BL Bhati, AAG Mr. Deepak Chandak For Respondent(s): Mr. Vineet Sharma, through VC
Transfer orders can only be challenged on statutory violations or malafide, not personal inconveniences.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Service - Administrative Exigency - The appeal arises from a rejection of an application to vacate a stay on a transfer order, challenged solely based on a precedent that was deemed inapplicable - The respondent's transfer was justified by administrative exigency without statutory violation or malafide - The court emphasized that personal inconveniences do not warrant interference with transfer orders. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Legal Principles - The settled legal position is that transfer orders can only be challenged on grounds of statutory violation, malafide, or extraneous considerations, as established in various Supreme Court decisions. (Paras 2-4)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a senior police officer, challenged his transfer order merely on the basis of impending retirement in 13 months and a precedent case that was found irrelevant.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for interference with the transfer order and vacated the interim stay.
Issues: The main issues included whether the transfer order was in violation of statutory provisions or actuated by malafide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without statutory violation or malafide, personal inconveniences do not justify interference with transfer orders.
Result: The interim order stands vacated and the appeal is disposed of.
Order
20/12/2024
1. Mr. Vineet Sharma, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting application for vacating stay in the matter of transfer. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the transfer order of the respondent is challenged only on the basis of an order passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Smt. Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1430/1999) decided on 16.12.1999 , whereas, the aforesaid judgment has no application in the present case. It is also submitted that the respondent is a senior police officer and his transfer was made in administrative exigency. It is further submitted that without there being any statutory violation or malafide, the order of transfer is beyond the scope of interference, as held in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. On advance copy, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the learned Single Judge has passed interim order in his favour taking into consideration that he is going to retire in 13 months and also taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Smt. Pushpa Mehta( supra ).
4. A perusal of the writ petition shows that there is absolutely no ground raised by the respondent that the order of transfer is in violation of statutory provision or actuated by malafide. The only ground taken is that he is going to retire in 13 months. There is even no policy that transfer could not be affected. The settled legal position, adumbrated in catena of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, is that unless there is a case of statutory violation or malafide, an order of transfer could not be interfered with. Personal inconveniences are no ground and cases of hardship may require attention of the authorities, but that cannot be a ground to interfere with the transfer order. Judgment in the case of Dr. Smt. Pushpa Mehta( supra ), in fact, on principles, does not support the case of the respondent because this judgment also clearly states that the transfer could only be challenged on the ground of statutory violation or malafide or if it is affected on extraneous consideration, without administrative reasons.
5. Therefore, we are not inclined to continue the interim order.
The interim order passed in the writ petition stands vacated. We request the learned Single Judge to finally dispose off the petition within a period of one month.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
