Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Jhabar Singh Jat Son Of Late Shri Ramnath … vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 March, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:10752]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3217/2025
Jhabar Singh Jat Son Of Late Shri Ramnath Jat, Aged About 59
Years, Resident Of 629, Shanti Nagar, Near Durgapura Railway
Station, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jaipur Through Its
Chairman And Managing Director, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jan
Path, Jaipur.
3. Chief Controller Of Accounts-I, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran
Nigam Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur.
4. Chief Accounts Officer (Fm-W And M), Jaipur Discom,
Jaipur.
5. Amit Saxena, Assistant Accounts Officer Ii, Now Posted In
Place Of Petitioner In The Office Of Accounts Officer (Jcc
North) Jpd, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Vidhyut
Bhawan, Jan Path, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashok Bansal with
Mr.Pawan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ankur Srivastava
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved on :: 05/03/2025
Pronounced on :: 11/03/2025
1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
had apprised the Court with the brief factual narrative of the
instant petition along with the other germane facts that are
relevant for efficacious adjudication of the matter in hand. The
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (2 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]
primary contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, inter alia others, were as follows:
1.1 That the petitioner who is holding the post of Assistant
Accounts Officer (Grade II); is at the verge of superannuation as
merely one year of service is remaining in completion of his tenure
with the respondent-department, was transferred vide impugned
transfer order dated 15.01.2025 from Jaipur to Alwar and
respondent no. 5 was posted in the petitioners’ place of posting
i.e. at Jaipur, at his own request.
1.2 That it can be inferred that the respondents whilst
acting arbitrarily with the settled position of law as even
enunciated in a catena of judgments passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, various other High Courts and the transfer policy
of the respondent Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Nigam’) have passed the impugned
transfer order.
1.3 That the present is second round of litigation as the
erstwhile petition filed by the petitioner bearing no, SBCWP No.
1563/2025 titled as Jhabar Singh Jat vs. The State of Rajasthan
and Ors. was disposed of vide order dated 06.02.2025 with the
directions to the respondents therein to consider the
representation filed by the aggrieved petitioner, within an upper
limit period of fifteen days. However, the respondent-Nigam vide
its reply/letter (Annexure-8) to the representation filed by the
petitioner dated 07.02.2025 had upheld their decision and
affirmed the petitioners’ transfer.
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (3 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]
1.4 That the respondents have issued the impugned
transfer order dated 15.01.2025 and, in a perfunctory and
arbitrary manner, rejected the representation submitted by the
petitioner through their reply/letter dated 21.02.2025, merely for
the purpose of accommodating the private respondent herein,
without duly considering the respondents’ own transfer policy, the
medical condition of the petitioner, the period of service remaining
for the petitioner to attain the age of superannuation, and other
relevant factors and circumstances.
1.5 That the petitioner, being a diligent and compliant
employee of the respondent-Nigam, has consistently performed
his duties with the utmost sincerity and dedication. Throughout his
service spanning approximately 26 years, the petitioner has
demonstrated unwavering commitment to his responsibilities.
During the course of his employment, the petitioner was
transferred to Sawaimadhopur, where he joined and diligently
rendered his services for a period of eight months. Subsequently,
the petitioner was transferred back to Jaipur. These transfers,
which reflect the petitioner’s compliance with the respondent’s
administrative decisions, further illustrate the petitioner’s
steadfastness in fulfilling his professional obligations under the
respondent-Nigam’s directions.
2. In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, given the
petitioner’s imminent superannuation, coupled with the
petitioner’s unblemished record throughout his entire service, the
impugned transfer order passed by the respondents should be set
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (4 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]
aside. It was contended that the transfer order was issued in a
hasty and arbitrary manner, primarily aimed at accommodating
the private respondent, without giving due consideration to the
respondent-Nigam’s established transfer policy. Furthermore, the
petitioner’s impending retirement, his exemplary service record,
and the lack of proper consideration of relevant factors such as
the petitioner’s medical condition and the circumstances
surrounding the transfer warrant the quashing of the said transfer
order. The transfer, being issued without due regard for the
established policies and the petitioner’s long and dedicated
service, is in violation of principles of fairness and justice and,
thus, should be annulled.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has
vehemently argued that the petitioner’s transfer was carried out
only after an assiduous consideration of the administrative
exigencies and the broader public interest. It was further
contended that the transfer order in question is devoid of any
arbitrariness or illegality, as it was made in accordance with the
respondent-Nigam’s operational requirements. The respondents
assert that service transfers are an inherent and integral part of
the conditions of service, particularly when an employee holds a
position that is subject to transfer. Such transfers, are a necessary
component of the organizational framework and are made in the
interest of ensuring the efficient functioning of the respondent-
Nigam.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents had placed
reliance upon a catena of judgments, a few of which were, Sri
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (5 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]
Pubi Lombi Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
reported in (2024) 3 SCR, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. Vs.
State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659,
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 15 SCC
178, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri
Bhagwan reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574, Abani Kanta Ray Vs.
State of Orissa & Ors. reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169,
Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in (1993) 4
SCC 357, Cipla Ltd. Vs. Jayakumar R. reported in (1999) 1
SCC 300 and Sk. Nausad Rahaman Vs. Union of India
reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1, and had contended that the scope
of judicial intervention in the transfer orders passed due to
administrative exigencies is miniscule. Nevertheless, transfers are
incidence of service and it is not an absolute right of an employee
to remain at single place of posting and the employee can be
rotated/transferred considering the administrative exigencies,
public interest, history of posting etc. by the competent authority.
5. On the facts of the instant matter, learned counsel
representing the respondents had contended that the private
respondent was posted at the relieving place of the petitioner i.e.
Jaipur on 16.01.2025 in the afternoon. Withal, the petitioner was
relieved vide order dated 24.01.2025 and the said order is not
assailed by the petitioner.
6. Consecutively, it was averred that the petitioner ever since
21.09.2016 was working at the Jaipur Branch of the respondent-
department and in the office of Accounts Officer (JCC-North),
JVVNL, Jaipur since 30.09.2019, thence considering the dire
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (6 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]
urgency and administrative exigency, the petitioner was
transferred to the vacant post of ARO in the Revenue Sub-Division
of Asst. Engineer (O&M), JVVNL, Bagadmev (Alwar Circle), to fill
up the vacant seat in the absolute interest of Nigam.
7. From the contentions made insofar, it can be concluded that
the petitioner had remained posted in Jaipur for a total period of
26 years 11 months out of his total service period in JVVNL of 28
years 9 months and has worked in Jaipur for continuously 8 years.
8. In pursuance of the letter dated 21.02.2025 i.e. the rejection
letter of the representation of the petitioner, it was contended that
the said rejection was accorded only after considering the
averments made by the incumbent during the personal hearing,
and taking note of material facts like the history of posting of the
petitioner, health of the petitioner, pleas made by the incumbent
and allied factors.
9. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of
the case, taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar and the
arguments averred by the learned counsel for the parties, and
upon a perusal of the relevant documents, this Court is of the
following view:
9.1 Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a plethora of judgments, has
consistently reiterated that the scope of judicial review against
transfer orders is limited and minimal. The rationale behind this
circumscribed approach to judicial intervention in transfer matters,
particularly when exercising writ jurisdiction, is grounded in the
recognition that any unchecked interference by the courts could
result in a disruptive and chaotic situation within the functioning of
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (7 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]government affairs. This is especially true if employees, upon
being posted to locations as per administrative requirements, are
permitted to refuse or challenge their postings based on personal
preferences. Consequently, the only legitimate grounds for judicial
interference exist in cases where the transfer orders are shown to
have been issued on the basis of malafides or improper motives
by the transferring authority, thereby rendering the order
arbitrary, unjust, or capricious.
9.2 The determination of which employee should be posted
to a particular location, and at what time, lies exclusively within
the administrative domain of the competent authority or
department. Such decisions are made with the objective of
promoting the effective functioning of the department, ensuring
optimal service delivery, and enhancing operational efficiency. In
the absence of mala fides or a violation of any applicable statutory
provisions, the Courts should refrain from interfering with transfer
orders. Should the employee encounter any issues or grievances
arising from such decisions, it is the appropriate course for the
matter to be referred to the appellate authority for resolution,
rather than judicial intervention at the initial stage.
9.3 The issue in hand is not newfangled and is already
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment
encapsulated in Mrs. Shipli Bose (supra), the relevant extract
from the said ratio is reproduced herein below:
“3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties
and having considered the facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the opinion that the High
Court committed serious error in interfering with
the transfer Orders of primary school teachers. The(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (8 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]High Court held that the District Education
Establishment Committee had no jurisdiction to
transfer the Primary School teachers on their
request. We find no justification for this conclusion.
There is no dispute that the District Education
Establishment Committee is competent to transfer
Primary School teachers from one place to the
other but merely because such transfers were
made on the request of teachers, the committee is
divested of its jurisdiction. The Director of the
Primary Education had issued directions that lady
teachers posted in distant areas or rural areas may
be accommodated to the place of their request to
avoid hardship to them. These directions are
reasonable, and the District Education
Establishment Committee followed the same
principles in transferring the appellants on their
requests to avoid hardship with was being caused
to them. The respondents challenged the validity of
the transfer before the High Court on another
ground also that Primary School teachers posted in
the urban areas were not liable to be transferred to
rural areas though the State Government had
issued circular on March 30, 1984 permitting
transfers from urban areas to rural areas. The High
Court did not interfere with the Order of the
transfer on this ground instead it held that the
transfer Orders were without jurisdiction as the
same had been made on the appellants’ request
with a view of accommodate them. We fail to
appreciate the reasoning recorded by the High
Court. If the competent authority issued transfer
Orders with a view to accommodate a public
servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and
should not be interfered by the Court merely
because the transfer Order were passed on the
request of the employees concerned. The
respondents have continued to be posted at
their respective places for the last several
years, they have no vested right to remain
posted at one place. Since they hold
transferable posts they are liable to be
transferred from one place to the other. The
transfer Orders had been issued by the competent
authority which did not violate any mandatory
Rule, therefore the High Court had no jurisdiction
to interfere with the transfer Orders.
4. In our opinion, the Courts should not
interfere with a transfer Order which are
made in public interest and for administrative
reasons unless the transfer Orders are made
in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (9 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]or on the ground of malafide. A Government
servant holding a transferable post has no
vested right to remain posted at one place or
the other, he is liable to be transferred from
one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued
by the competent authority do not violate any
of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is
passed in violation of executive instructions
or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not
interfere with the Order instead affected
party should approach the higher authorities
in the Department. If the Courts continue to
interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by
the Government and its subordinate authorities,
there will be complete chaos in the Administration
which would not be conducive to public interest.
The High Court over looked these aspects in
interfering with the transfer Orders.”
(Emphasis laid)
9.4 Nevertheless, in the present case, it is pertinent to note
that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court during
the first round of litigation, the respondent-Nigam has duly
considered the matter and, in a fair and transparent manner,
granted a personal hearing to the petitioner. Following such due
process, the respondent-Nigam, after taking into account all
relevant factors, including the petitioner’s health condition, the
history of the petitioner’s postings, and other pertinent
circumstances, has decided to uphold the transfer order. The
petitioner, as a result, is assigned a ‘desk job’ at the new place of
posting i.e. at Alwar, which reflects a balanced approach in
addressing the petitioner’s concerns. For the sake of convenience,
the relevant extract from the letter dated 21.02.2025 passed by
the respondent-Nigam (rejecting the representation of the
petitioner) is reproduced herein below:
“In compliance to the directions ibid, the petitioner
submitted his representation dated 7th February(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (10 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]2025, praying for cancellation of his transfer made
vide Order dated 15th January 2025 referred above.
The incumbent was also called for personal hearing
and heard on 21st February 2025.
After having thoroughly gone through the
representation dated 7th February and averments
made by the incumbent during the personal
hearing, it has been concluded that he was
transferred from his present place of posting at
Jaipur to the office of AEN (O&M) Bagadmev in
Alwar circle to fill in the vacant post of ARO in
revenue earning O&M sub-division. Further, the
incumbent was one of the AAOs-II having the
longest stint at Jaipur. He has remained posted at
Jaipur for a total period of around 26 years and 11
months out of his total service of around 28 years
and 6 months up to the date of transfer order
referred above.
The incumbent reiterated two primary grounds in
his representation, first the alleged violation of
transfer policy and his health grounds being
suffering from diabetic and hypertension. As far as
clause 3.6 of the transfer policy referred by the
incumbent is concerned, it is worthy to recall that
the same is one of the guiding principles only to be
taken care of at the time of transfer of personnel.
As such, this is not binding one overriding the
administrative expediency. With regard to the
other ground of health, the incumbent was
performing the desk job in his present office and
the similar desk job is to be performed by him at
the new place of posting without any field
assignments. Hence, the reported ailment of
diabetic and hypertension with which he was
carrying out his assignments at Jaipur is hardly
supposed to come in the way, while performing at
his new place of posting.
In view of the above, the transfer of the incumbent
has been made in the large interest of the Nigam
to fill in the post lying vacant in the revenue
earning sub-division. As such, there appears to be
no convincing ground to review the transfer order
dated 15th January 2025 referred above qua the
incumbent. Hence, the incumbent is advised to
resume his new assignment without any further
delay so that the billing, collection and other day-
to-day functions including timely redressal of the
grievances of the consumers of the sub-division
may not suffer anymore.”
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:10752] (11 of 11) [CW-3217/2025]
9.5 It is also noteworthy that the petitioner has not
challenged the relieving order dated 24.01.2025, thereby tacitly
accepting the administrative decision and the circumstances
surrounding it. In this context, it is a settled principle that a party
cannot approbate and reprobate (nemo debet bis vexari), i.e. the
petitioner cannot both accept and challenge the decision at the
same time.
9.6 Additionally, it would serve no useful purpose to disturb
the position of the private respondent, who has already complied
with the transfer order by joining his new post in Jaipur, as such
disruption would amount to a waste of time and resources, which
should be avoided by the Court.
10. In light of these considerations, it is evident that no valid
grounds exist for revisiting or overturning the transfer order, and
any attempt to do so would be contrary to established legal
principles and judicial efficiency.
11. In light of the foregoing, the present petition is hereby
dismissed. The petitioner is directed to report to the new place of
posting within a period of five working days, from the date of
pronouncement of this judgment. Pending applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:58:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)