Dr. Shiv Kumar Saran @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.09.2018 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Community

Health Centre, Shahpura, Jaipur to Community Health Centre, Virat Nagar, Jaipur.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the petitioner was transferred by the respondent vide order dated 10.07.2018 from Community

Health Centre, Shahpura, Jaipur to District Hospital, Dholpur against which the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17941/2018 which was

decided by Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 10.08.2018 with the following observations:-

“In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a

reasoned and speaking order in the backdrop of the policy as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than four

weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

Until determination of the representation of the petitioner, the impugned transfer order dated 10th July, 2018, qua the petitioner, shall remain stayed.

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.â€​

Counsel further submits that in compliance of the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court, the petitioner submitted a

representation before the Department and after considering the said representation in the light of the order dated 10.08.2018, the petitioner has been

posted at Community Health Centre, Virat Nagar, Jaipur against the vacant post vide order dated 11.09.2018. Counsel further submits that the action

of the respondent in not posting the petitioner at Shahpura is against their own policy and also against the directions issued by the Co-ordinate Bench

of this court in the order dated 10.08.2018.

Counsel relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Bhola Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B

Civil Writ Petition No.11455/2018) decided on 25.05.2018 wherein it has been held as under:“Having heard the petitioner in person and on a

perusal of the materials ava lable on record so also having regard to the fact that the State-respondents in the first place did not make any transfer

order of the petitioner; however, subsequently have made, carried out amendment in the transfer order that was already made, a practice ofter

frowned upon by the Courts so also in the backdrop of contemplation under circular dated 20thJuly,2000; the petitioner is required to address a

representation to the State-respondents within two weeks hereinafter.

In case a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by am

reasoned and speaking order in the backdrop of observations recorded hereinabove so also keeping in view the guidelines issued vide circular dated

20th July,2000. The State-respondents would to the needful to determine the representation as expeditiously as possible; preferably, within four weeks

from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

Until determination of the representation of the petitioner, the transfer order dated 19th May, 2018, so also order dated 23rd May,2018 qua the

petitioner shall remain stayed.â€​

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Kashmir Singh and Anr., reported in (2010) 13 SCC 306, in paras

12 & 14Â it has been held as under:-

“12. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service and the Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not

clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the State authorities

concerned which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The administrative authorities

concerned may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their

assessment of the law and order and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters and it is well settled that Courts must not

ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint, vide Tata Cellular V. Union of India.

In our opinion, the High Court has taken a totally impractical view of the matter. If the view of the High Court is to prevail, great difficulties will be

created for the State administration since it will not be able to transfer/deploy its police force from one place where there may be relative peace to

another district or region/range in the State where there may be disturbed law and order situation and hence requirement of more police. Courts should

not, in our opinion, interfere with purely administrative matters except where absolutely necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other

legal right of the citizen. After all, the State administration cannot function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back. As Holmes, J. of the US

Supreme Court pointed out, there must be some free play of the joints provided to the executive authorities.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, it is for the employer to post its employee at the place

where their services are required in the interest of administration; secondly, the employee cannot dictate the employer to post him at a particular place

as per his choice; thirdly, the respondent after considering request of the petitioner has posted him near by to his original place of positing which is only

at a distance of 40 kms, vide order dated 11.09.2018.

In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed.