HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9115/2022

Anita Mehra Wife Of Shri Bhurmal, Aged About 45 Years,

Resident Of 106, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And

Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health Services And

Additional Director (Administration), Panchayati Raj

(Medical) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.

Medical Superintendent, Janana Hospital, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma.

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

04/07/2022

1.

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the transfer order dated 15.06.2022, whereby the

petitioner has been transferred from Janana Hospital, Jaipur to

Sub Centre, Delash, Dausa.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been transferred by the respondents from Janana Hospital, Jaipur

to Sub Centre, Delash, Dausa and she is working at Jaipur since

2016. Counsel further submits that it is a case of non-application

of mind and in the transfer order post of all the persons have

wrongly been mentioned. Counsel further submits that the

(2 of 4)

[CW-9115/2022]

husband of the petitioner is also a government employee, working

at Karauli.

3.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India

and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in

(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 has

held as under:-

“3.The High Court, in interfering with the order

of transfer, has relied on two circumstances.

Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a

result of the stay on the order of transfer, the

headquarters of the respondent will remain at

Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his

headquarters will continue to remain at

Mumbai. The second reason, which was

weighed with the High Court, is that the

spouse of the respondent suffers from a

cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical

treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of

these reasons can furnish a valid justification

for the High Court to take recourse to its

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution in passing an order of

injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High

Court has not even found a prima facie case to

the effect that the order of transfer was either

mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court

could not have dictated to the employer as to

where the respondent should be posted during

the period of suspension. Individual hardships

are matters for the Union of India, as an

employer, to take a dispassionate view.

4.However, we are categorically of the view

that the impugned order of the High Court

interfering with the order of transfer was in

excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise

of judicial power. We are constrained to

observe that the impugned order has been

passed in breach of the settled principles and

precedents which have consistently been

enunciated and followed by this Court. The

manner in which judicial power has been

exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful

order of transfer is disquieting. We express our

disapproval”.

(3 of 4)

[CW-9115/2022]

5.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Rajendra

Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in

(2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 178, where in para Nos. 8, 9

& 10, it has been held as under:-

“8. A Government Servant has no vested right

to remain posted at a place of his choice nor

can he insist that he must be posted at one

place or the other. He is liable to be

transferred in the administrative exigencies

from one place to the other. Transfer of an

employee is not only an incident inherent in

the terms of a