[2025:RJ-JP:10688] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3479/2025 B.l. Mishra Son Of Late Shri Shiv Prasad Mishra, Aged About 60 Years, 06 Months, R/o Plot No.c-208, Haribhau Upadhyay Nagar, Infront Of Regional College Ajmer, Rajasthan (Presently Posted At Govt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital Ek Chhat Ke Neeche, Ajmer)As S.m.o. (Employee Id Rjaj199101006312) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Ayurveda And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Rajasthan 2. Deputy Secretary Ayurveda And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Rajasthan 3. The Director Ayurveda And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 4. Medical Officer (In-Charge), Govt. Ayurveda Chikitsalaya, J.l.n. Hospital Parishar, Ajmer, Rajasthan 5. Dr. Anju Choudhary (M.o.), Govt. Ayurvedik Hospital Veer Ajmer Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 10/03/2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner vide the impugned transfer order dated 16.01.2025 was transferred from Government Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer to Government Ayurveda Hospital Beer, Ajmer. Nevertheless, the petitioner was even relieved from his service vide the impugned relieving order dated 17.01.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:10688] (2 of 4) [CW-3479/2025] 2. It is noted that the respondents in a cursory and arbitrary manner has passed the impugned transfer order merely to accommodate respondent No.4 in place of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved of the arbitrary actions of the respondents the petitioner has filed a representation before the appropriate authorities. Thereafter, on account of subsequent developments qua allied issues and litigation, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur bearing No.1286/2025. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.02.2025. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 and has stoutly opposed the contentions made by the counsel representing the petitioner. It is further averred that all the contentions and grievance of the petitioner were considered by the learned RAT prior to the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered. 6. At the outset, it is noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, through a plethora of judgments, has time and again held that the permissibility and scope of judicial review against transfer orders is minuscule. The rationale exercised to circumscribe the Courts interference with transfer orders whilst exercising writ jurisdiction, primarily pertains to the fact that a bedlam of an aggravated magnitude shall ensue within the workings of the Government, if all employees, posted at a location of their liking, refuse to and/or contest their postings, when issued on account of administrative exigencies. Inevitably, the only scope of interference subsists in an [2025:RJ-JP:10688] (3 of 4) [CW-3479/2025] eventuality where the transfer orders are issued on account of certain malafides, at the end of the transferring authority. 7. The consideration regarding which employee should be posted ‘where’, falls purely within the administrative domain of the appropriate authority/department to decide, in the best interests of the working of the said department, whilst seeking to advance the department’s resultant output and service efficiency. Unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or is passed in violation of any applicable statutory provisions, the Courts ought not to extend interference in such orders. By logical deduction, it is made rather obvious that no Government will be able to smoothly function if the Government Servants insist that once appointed or posted in a particular place, they should continue at such place, as long as they desire whilst meeting out their individualistic and familial ease. The fact of the transfer being an indispensable part of an employee’s service is of paramount importance, which often loses favourability at the end of the employee, when they become comfortable with the place of their choosing. 8. It is noted that a government employee, posted at a location of their liking, does not have the fundamental protection to continue serving at the said location, especially in light of the fact that the incident of transfer, is a part and parcel of the conditions of service, when employed on a transferable post. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score alone, the order of transfer cannot be struck down. Administrative exigencies ought to prevail and/or take precedence [2025:RJ-JP:10688] (4 of 4) [CW-3479/2025] over the familial and individualistic priorities of the employees posted on transferable jobs. The only eventuality, where the Courts may extend interference in transfer orders, is when the transfer orders violate an applicable statute or are passed on account of certain malice. In support of the aforesaid reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659, Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Ors reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 148, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574 and S.K. Nausad Rahaman vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1. 9. Nevertheless, upon a bare perusal of the order dated 24.02.2025 it can be inferred that the learned RAT had granted due audience to the petitioner and only after considering the vital aspects such as administrative exigencies, have dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by way of a speaking order. 10. Accordingly, the present petition being bereft of any merits stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/149