HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15225/2022

Sunita Vijay Wife Of Shri Lalita Prasad Vijay, Aged About 58

Years, Resident Of D-1, Keshav Nagar, Sawai Madhopur

(Rajasthan)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Elementary And

Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Joint Director, School Education, Bharatpur Division,

Bharatpur.

3.

Prem Raj Bairwa, Presently Under Transfer From The Post

Of Senior Teacher, Government Upper Primary School,

Kishangarh Chahara, District - Sawai Madhopur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Manish Kumar Sahrma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG

Mr. Ajay Rajawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

21/10/2022

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the order dated 28.08.2022 whereby the petitioner

has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School

Rawanjana Chaur, District Sawaimadhopur to Government Upper

Primary Kishangarh, Chahara, District Sawaimadhopur as well as

order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal

dated 27.09.2022, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner was

dismissed.

(2 of 4)

[CW-15225/2022]

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by

the Tribunal is without application of mind and the petitioner is

suffering with serious mental problem, for which, she is taking

regular treatment at Jaipur. Counsel further submits that only 18

months left in the retirement of the petitioner.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed

the writ petition.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

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

(3 of 4)

[CW-15225/2022]

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”.

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, in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10,

has 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 mus