Order

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging transfer order dated 10.01.2026, whereby petitioner, who was working as a School Lecturer (Physics) at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Matka Chowk, Ganganagar, District Sriganganagar, has been transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Parlika, District Hanumangarh, which is approximately 150 kms away from her earlier place of posting.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is more than 17 weeks pregnant, in support of which Medical Report has been placed on record. It is further submitted that husband of petitioner is also a government servant and is currently posted at Sriganganagar; however, in disregard of applicable circulars/guidelines governing transfers, petitioner has now been transferred to a distant place, causing undue hardship.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner had earlier assailed the transfer order, by way of appeal, before learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (RATE Jaipur, and said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 06.02.2026, whereby Respondent Authorities were directed to consider and decide the representation of petitioner by passing a speaking order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in compliance of aforesaid order dated 06.02.2026, petitioner had submitted representation (Annexure- 6), highlighting her medical condition as well as the fact that both she and her husband are government servants. However, Respondent No. 2 has rejected said representation vide order dated 23.02.2026 in a most mechanical manner by passing a non-speaking order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that several other writ petitions of similar nature have already been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 16.10.2025 passed in leading S.B. C.W. P. No. 18959/2025.

6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the transfer has been effected on account of administrative exigency. It is argued that merely because petitioner’s husband is also a government servant, no vested right accrues in favour of petitioner to seek posting at the same place, particularly when the husband is not serving in the Education Department. It is further submitted that, in view of petitioner’s pregnancy, she is at liberty to avail maternity leave as per rules.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. At the outset, this Court is aware of the settled legal position that transfer is an incident of service and it is a prerogative of the State to transfer employees to any other place during the course of employment. However, present case presents peculiar and compelling circumstances as petitioner is more than 17 weeks into her pregnancy and has been transferred to a place approximately 150 Kms away. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that present case is required to be adjudicated in its peculiar context.

9. The contention advanced on behalf of Respondent Authorities that the policy regarding posting of spouses at the same station is inapplicable to petitioner is wholly misconceived. The underlying object of such a policy is to promote family stability and mitigate hardship. In the present case, petitioner is 17 weeks pregnant, and it is an undisputed position that her husband is also a government employee. The facts, therefore, present a compelling case for the due application of the said policy.

10. The refusal to extend the benefit of the policy merely on the ground that petitioner’s husband serves in a different department reflects an unduly hyper-technical and insensitive approach on the part of Respondent Authorities. Such an interpretation not only defeats the intent underlying the policy but also renders its object nugatory.

11. This Court further finds that directions issued by learned Tribunal vide order dated 06.02.2026 have not been complied with in their true spirit. Despite a specific direct