Case Law
Subject : Service Law - Transfer & Posting
JODHPUR: In a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government to transfer 63 constables, originally recruited for the Mineral Protection Force, to the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) area. The bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali held that the state cannot make an "attractive promise" during recruitment and later depart from it without justification, thereby upholding the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation'.
The case was brought forward by 63 petitioners who are permanent residents of Rajasthan's TSP area. They were recruited as Constables in 2013 for a newly created "Minerals Protection Force," with 80 posts specifically earmarked for the TSP region. The petitioners applied under this category, were selected, and appointed in 2016.
However, instead of being posted in the mineral-rich tribal belts as expected, their entire cadre was merged into the 14th Battalion, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary (RAC), and they were posted in Jaipur. Despite subsequent government circulars in 2014 and 2018 allowing TSP-resident employees posted elsewhere to seek transfers back to the TSP region, the petitioners' applications were never acted upon, compelling them to approach the High Court.
Petitioners' Stance: Represented by Mr. Manvendra Singh, the petitioners argued that the state's failure to consider their transfer requests was arbitrary, discriminatory, and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that the very nature of their recruitment for a "Mineral Protection Force" under the TSP quota created a legitimate expectation that they would be posted in their home regions. They pointed out that other similarly situated constables had been granted transfers, making their exclusion unjustifiable.
State's Defence: The state government argued that the appointments were made based on merit and administrative exigencies. It maintained that government circulars on transfers do not confer an absolute right and that such decisions are a matter of administrative discretion. The limited number of vacancies in the TSP areas was cited as a reason for not considering the petitioners' cases.
Justice Farjand Ali, after examining the facts, found significant merit in the petitioners' plea. The court noted the stark contradiction between the purpose of the recruitment and the petitioners' actual deployment.
The judgment highlighted a crucial fact admitted by the respondents: "...although the recruitment was titled as that of the Mineral Protection Force and reservation was extended for TSP area and tribal candidates, in reality not a single employee recruited under this process has been deployed in the Mineral Protection Force."
The court invoked the principle of legitimate expectation, observing that the structure of the recruitment advertisement clearly linked the posts to tribal and mineral-rich areas. The judgment powerfully articulated this principle:
> "A legitimate expectation can, without doubt, arise in the mind of a candidate at the time of entering service... The State cannot extend an attractive promise at the stage of recruitment and later altogether depart from it without any rational justification."
The court further noted that the petitioners, belonging to "vulnerable tribal communities," deserved sympathetic consideration.
Balancing the equities, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear directive to the respondents. It ordered the state to consider shifting all 63 petitioners to the Maharana Pratap Battalion in Pratapgarh.
As an alternative, the court directed that in case of administrative exigencies, the petitioners "shall be suitably adjusted, transferred, deployed, or temporarily lodged in any district falling within the TSP area."
This judgment reinforces that the government is bound by the reasonable expectations it creates among citizens, particularly during the recruitment process, and cannot arbitrarily deviate from its stated objectives.
#ServiceLaw #LegitimateExpectation #RajasthanHighCourt
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.