Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 7699
[2026:RJ-JD:12628]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2972/2026
Garima Sharma D/o Shri Laxman Prasad Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 205, Sohan Sadan, Hiran Magri, Sector-3, Udaipur (Raj.).----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Joint Director (Personnel), Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner.
4. The Chief District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Udaipur.
5. The Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Eklingpura, District Udaipur. ----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
17/03/2026
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
82-JatinS/-
Order
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, vide order dated 17.07.2025 (Annex. 2), the petitioner was kept awaiting a posting order after being relieved from a school at Madhuban, Udaipur, and her headquarters was fixed at District Bikaner.
2. The petitioner, vide order dated 17.09.2025 (Annex. 4), was posted at a school in Bagdunda, Udaipur; however, within a span of one month, the said posting order was modified, and the petitioner was transferred to Eklingpura vide order dated10.10.2025 (Annex. 5).
3. After a lapse of three months, the petitioner has once again been transferred vide order dated 09.01.2025 (impugned order). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is a divorced woman living alone and has been transferred to three different locations within a span of three months. It is further submitted that the manner in which these transfers have been effected does not appear to serve any genuine administrative exigency.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in fact, the order dated 10.10.2025 cannot be construed as a transfer order; rather, it merely modifies the earlier order dated 17.07.2025. It is further submitted that the transfer order dated 09.01.2025 has been passed on account of administrative exigencies, and therefore, the same does not warrant interference by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. This Court is of the opinion that the chronology of events and the undisputed factual matrix clearly demonstrate that, within the last three months, the petitioner has been transferred or posted to three different locations. The respondents’ contention that the order dated 10.10.2025 does not constitute a transfer is wholly misconceived. Mere nomenclature or the language used in the order cannot alter its effect, as the petitioner, who was posted at Bagdunda, was directed to report to Eklingpura, which clearly amounts to a transfer.
7. Thus, the action of the respondent in transferring the petitioner at three different location cannot be justified. The respondent cannot be permitted to transfer an employee again and again in the name of administrative exigency.
8. In view of the above, present writ petition is hereby disposed of and the petitioner is permitted to file a detailed representation before the respondent authority, who shall consider the observations made herein and pass a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation.
9. Till that time, effect and operation of order dated 09.01.2025 shall remain stayed qua the petitioner.
10. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
