Jitendra Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 13.08.2020 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the office of X.En. Bharatpur to the office of X.En. Sayla, Jalore.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred by the respondents from the office of X.En. Bharatpur to the office of X.En. Sayla, Jalore at a distance of 700 Kms and the said order has been passed during the mid of academic session. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a president of the Union of the Rajasthan Vidyut Prasaran Shramik Sangh Bharatpur, therefore, the respondents have mala-fide transferred him at a distance of 700 Kms. Counsel further submits that the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of policy of the respondents and a ban has also been imposed by the State Government. Counsel further submits that there was no administrative exigency to transfer the petitioner and the petitioner has been transferred only to accommodate private respondent No.4.

Heard counsel for the petitioner 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 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 Government employee cannot claim to serve at a particular place of his choice, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (supra); secondly, not only the petitioner twenty other persons have also been transferred by the respondents vide order dated 13.08.2020; thirdly, the petitioner has levelled the allegation of mala-fide, however, no person has been impleaded by him as party respondent in this writ petition.

In that view of the matte, this writ petition stands dismissed.