##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14917]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6340/2026

Ravi Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Chandu Lal Sharma, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 8 Devta Colony, Ward No. 20, Karnanpur, Sri

Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Secretariat,

Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Zone Bikaner. 3. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School 9

_Fa, Manjhiwala, Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Bhati for

Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

01/04/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following

prayers:

“xxxxxx a. That the order dated 12.03.2026 annexure P/5 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner with all

consequential benefits.

b. That the respondents may kindly be restrained to restore the earlier transfer order Annex.P/3 dated 10.01.2026 and the aforesaid transfer order may kindly be declared

redundant qua the petitioner.

xxxxxxx”

2. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner, a Lecturer of Hindi posted at Government Senior Secondary School in Sri Ganganagar, is aggrieved by his transfer to Barmer. His wife

(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 06:09:23 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 08:00:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14917] (2 of 3) [CW-6340/2026] is also a government teacher posted in the same district. While the petitioner was deployed on election duty as a Supervisor pursuant to order dated 15.12.2025, a general ban on transfers of employees engaged in such duty was in force till 07.02.2026. Despite this, he was transferred on 10.01.2026 without any administrative exigency and without posting a substitute in his place; this transfer was subsequently withdrawn on 13.01.2026. However, by order dated 12.03.2026, the earlier transfer order was revived. The petitioner contends that the transfer is arbitrary and contrary to government policy mandating that spouses in government service be posted at the same station, especially when a post is vacant at Sri Ganganagar, and thus, being aggrieved of the above, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging

the impugned transfer order.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents, while the ban in operation, had transferred the petitioner from Ganganagar (Sri Ganganagar) to Barmer. He submits that the period of ban came into effect up-till 07.02.2026; wherein, petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 10.01.2026 (Annex.P/3). He also submits that respondents realized their mistake and vide order dated 13.01.2026 (Annex.P/4), withdrew the aforesaid transfer order. Thereafter, the respondents, vide order dated 12.03.2026 (Annex.P/5)), withdrawn the order dated 13.01.2026; meaning thereby, the said transfer order was given effect. He further submits that once the transfer order has been withdrawn by the respondents, the same cannot be given effect

later on by withdrawing the order dated 13.01.2026.

(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 06:09:23 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 08:00:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14917] (3 of 3) [CW-6340/2026] 4. Counsel for the petitioner, thus, makes a limited prayer that petitioner may be permitted to file a representation before the respondents, indicating in it that, in case, posts in Sri Ganganagar or in any other districts near Sri Ganganagar, are lying vacant, the respondents may be directed to post the petitioner at the said

place.

5. Counsel Mr. Rajendra Singh Bhati, associate to Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, learned AAG, does not object to the limited prayer

made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and without commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, the instant writ petition stands disposed of