Order

07/03/2024

1. The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 whereby the petitioner has been sought to be transferred to Rajsamand.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order impugned, the petitioner is mentioned to be under transfer which is totally erroneous as she was not under transfer but was posted at Udaipur. He submits that earlier when the petitioner was transferred from Udaipur to Banswara vide order dated 28.09.2023, the said order was assailed before this Court and vide interim order dated 10.10.2023, the order dated 28.09.2023 was stayed. The said interim order dated 10.10.2023 was made absolute on 29.01.2024 and hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was under transfer.

3. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is due to retire in the month of August 2025 and hence, in view of the observations made in (Dr.) Pushpa Mehta vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors.; 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 725, the order impugned deserves to be stayed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5. A perusal of the record makes it clear that the petitioner, who is an employee of the Education Department, applied in pursuance to an advertisement issued, for being sent on deputation with the Department of Minority Affairs. On being selected, the petitioner was posted on deputation with the said Department in the year 2021.

6. Subsequently, the said deputation was sought to be cancelled but the petitioner assailed the said order dated 10.05.2022 before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 26.07.2022, order dated 10.05.2022 was stayed and ultimately vide order dated 28.07.2023, the Tribunal finally decided in favour of the petitioner and hence the petitioner continued with the respondent Department.

7. Subsequently, the petitioner was sought to be transferred vide order dated 28.09.2023 which also was assailed by her and the same was also stayed and as a consequence, the petitioner remains posted at Udaipur till date.

8. A perusal of the above facts makes it clear that the petitioner, who is on deputation with the respondent Department, is posted at Udaipur since the year 2019. What is evident is that the petitioner wishes to continue with the respondent Department only and does not want to be reverted back to her parent Department as when the deputation with the respondent Department was cancelled, she challenged the same. However, while wishing to continue on deputation with the respondent Department, she even wants that she be continued at Udaipur only and never be transferred.

9. In the opinion of this Court, the service of an employee cannot be governed by the employee’s own wishes. Transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim, as a matter of right, that he/she would work only at a specific place of posting during his/her complete tenure of service.

10. So far as the ground that the petitioner is due to retire in the month of August 2025 is concerned, earlier, when she was transferred vide order dated 28.09.2023, she preferred a writ petition before this Court, on the same ground. While deciding the said writ petition and making the interim order absolute, it was made clear by the Court that the respondents shall be at liberty to pass fresh order and transfer the petitioner in accordance with law, if administrative exigency so warrants. In view of the above order, the present order cannot be said to be bad, the same being in consonance with the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by this Court.

11. So far as the judgment in the case of (Dr.) Pushpa Mehta (supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio of (Dr.) Pushpa Mehta (supra) would not apply to the present matter because of its peculiar facts and circumstances. (Dr.) Pushpa Mehta (supra) was a matter wherein the Court reached to a conclusion that the incumbent therein was transferred j