The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Petition filed against the transfer order of a government servant.
The facts in the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Patwari in1999 on probation basis. Thereafter, his services were confirmed on the post of Patwari. In 2021, the petitioner was transferred from the office of Inspector Land Records, Tehsil Chikhli, District Dungarpur to the office of Inspector Land Records, Bodigama Bada, Tehsil Sabla, District Dungarpur. The petitioner was working at Sabla since then. By the order dated 14/01/2023, the petitioner was again transferred from Sabla to Circle Mohkampura, Tehsil Kushalgarh, District Banswara.
Accoding to the Petitioner , no administrative exigency is shown in the transfer order. The petitioner has school going children and old parents and, therefore, transferring the petitioner from Sabla to Kushalgarh will entail inconvenience to the family. He, therefore, prays that the transfer order dated 14/01/2023 qua the petitioner may be quashed and set aside.
A single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed noted that in the petition the ground for frequent transfers has also been made, however, the same has not been argued before the Court.
“The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has school going children and old parents, therefore, he should not be transferred, cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere in the transfer order passed by the respondents on 14/01/2023. Since the petitioner is a government servant, he is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigency from one place to another. The grounds raised in the petition does not warrant any interference in the transfer order issued by the respondent-Department. No malafide has been alleged nor the transfer order passed by the Competent Authority is assailed on the ground that the authority, who has passed the transfer order, is not competent to transfer the petitioner. A bare perusal of the transfer order dated 14/01/2023 shows that 151 persons have been transferred and the petitioner has not been singularly chosen”, the Bench observed.
In view of the discussions made above, the Court opined that no interference in the transfer order passed by the respondent authority is warranted by the Court.