Chetram Meena vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 29.09.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Dausa to District Chittorgarh.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that father of the petitioner is suffering with brain hemorrhage and the petitioner has already served in District Nagaur for twenty years. Counsel further submits that the order passed by the respondents is in malafide manner and without any administrative exigency.

Learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that not only the petitioner, the respondents have issued transfer order dated 29.09.2020 whereby thousands of teachers have been transferred from one place to another due to administrative exigencies. Counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot claim to serve at a particular place of his choice.

Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. Vs Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit and Anr. reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para nos. 3 and 4 has held as under:-

"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.

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".

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner who is a Government employee cannot claim to serve at a particular place of his choice; secondly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. Vs Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit (supra) no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Hence this writ petition is dismissed.