##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15147]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7264/2026

Sumer Lal S/o Late Shri Ram Lal Ji, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Sinli Jagir, Pachpadra, District Balotra.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Balotra.

3. Parasmal S/o Nil, R/o Working As Accounts Officer Iind At Nagar Parishad, Balotra.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

02/04/2026

1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that the present petition for writ may kindly be allowed and;

I. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, working of respondent no.3, as commissioner, Accounts officer, Nagar

Parishad, Balotra deserves to be quashed and set aside.

II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction appropriate order(s) representation given to respondents may be

decided; ...”

2. Although, in the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, who claims himself to be an Advocate, various grounds have been raised with regard to the eligibility of respondent No.3 to hold the post of Accounts Officer, Nagar Parishad, Balotra, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confined

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:59:57 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 08:55:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15147] (2 of 3) [CW-7264/2026] his submissions to one ground. It was contended that, as per the circular dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure-4) issued by the Department of Administrative Reforms, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, a government servant should not be retained at one post for more than five years in the interest of administration. However, respondent No.3 has been working/posted at Nagar Parishad, Balotra since his initial appointment as a Fireman in the year

1990.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the continuance of respondent No.3 at Nagar Parishad, Balotra is not only against the interest of administration and violative of the circular dated 01.06.2023, but also indicative of his dominance over the system. It was, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to transfer respondent No.3 out of Nagar Parishad,

Balotra.

4. Heard.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, this Court fails to understand as to how the petitioner, who is an Advocate, is concerned with seeking the transfer of respondent No.3 out of Balotra. It is for the respondents to decide where they intend to utilize the services of their employees. It is trite that transfer of a government employee is an incident of service and may be effected on administrative exigencies. However, such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the employer, and a third party, having no direct or subsisting interest in the appointment or posting of an employee, cannot seek a direction to compel the Government to transfer

such employee from a particular post or place.

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:59:57 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 08:55:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15147] (3 of 3) [CW-7264/2026] 6. Insofar as the circular dated 01.06.2023 is concerned, the same merely provides broad guidelines for transfer and posting of government employees in the interest of administration. The said circular is not statutory in nature and, therefore, no writ can be

issued for its enforcement.

7. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed, being

devoid of merit.

8. The stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed of.

KULDEEP MATHUR),J

51-divya/-

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:59:57 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 08:55:11 AM)