Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12160
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Anand Sharma, J
SOHAN LAL BUNKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2487/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kailash Jangid
For the Respondents: Royendar Singh Bhati, Sajjan Singh Rathore
Intra-departmental deputation is treated as a transfer, and employees have no vested right to a specific posting; therefore, the competent authority can transfer them based on administrative exigency without strictly adhering to repatriation procedures like Rule 25A of RSR.
Headnote:(A) Intra-Departmental Deputation - Nature of Posting - Deputation within the parent department is essentially a transfer; the competent authority retains the right to post the employee based on administrative exigency. (Para 3, 6, 7)
(B) Service Rules - Rule 25A of RSR - Repatriation Procedure - The requirement to keep an employee 'awaiting posting order' under Rule 25A is not mandatory in all cases, particularly in instances of intra-departmental movements where a person can be transferred without a specific repatriation order. (Para 7)
(C) Vested Right - Transfer - Transfer is an inherent part of service, and no employee possesses a vested right to continue at a particular place of posting. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the transfer order dated 10.01.2026 is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with Rule 25A of RSR and the absence of a formal repatriation order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to transfer order based on alleged non-compliance with repatriation procedures under rule 25a of rsr. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention that intra-departmental deputation is effectively a transfer subject to administrative exigency. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. verification that the deputation was intra-departmental and the specified term had already expired. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal principle that transfer is a condition of service and no vested right to a specific posting exists. (Para 7) |
| 5. dismissal of the writ petition as the transfer order was legally sustainable. (Para 8 , 9) |
Order
1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.01.2026 issued by Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner whereby, petitioner has been transferred from the office of Chief Block Education Officer, Block Mavali District, Udaipur to the post of Lecturer at Gov. Senior Seconday School Arayan, Ganganagar.
2. While pressing the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 26.08.2022, the petitioner was selected for deputation under Rule 144A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 initially for a period of one year but, such period of one year was extended from time to time. It is argued that the deputation order of the petitioner has not been cancelled by issuing any specific order and without even passing any order of repatriation, the petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 10.01.2026, which is against the procedure as contemplated under Rule 25A of RSR wherein, it has been laid down that in case, any employee has been sent on deputation then on repatriation, firstly, he was required to be kept 'awaiting posting order' and only thereafter, any order of transfer or posting order can be issued. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 10.01.2026 since, has been passed contrary to the statutory rules, is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
3. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents in which, it has been submitted that the order dated 26.08.2022 earlier issued by the Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner for sending the petitioner on deputation, was not an order for inter- Department deputation but, it was intra-Department deputation. Learned counsel submits that the order of deputation dated 26.08.2022 as well as the impugned order of transfer dated 10.01.2026 have been issued by the same authority i.e. by the Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. Learned counsel submits that in case, any person has been sent within the Department on deputation for carrying out the assigned work, such order is in the nature of transfer and the Competent Authority is well within its rights to post the employee concerned as per the administrative exigency at any other place.
4. Learned counsel further submits that in the instant case, even otherwise, period of alleged deputation was only one year and admittedly, such period has lapsed long back. Thereupon, otherwise also, the petitioner does not hold any vested right to continue on deputation.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner was sent on deputation under Rule 144A of RSR in Rajasthan School Council, which is an integral part of Department of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was never deputed to any Department of the Government of Rajasthan, other than his parent Department and it has also come on record that the period of one year for which, the petitioner was sent for deputation is already over in the year 2023.
7. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that without cancelling deputation, the order of transfer could not have been issued, is having no merit and substance, for the reason that in the instant case, as admitted, the petitioner was not transferred to any other Department and it was an intra- Departme
