[2025:RJ-JP:11071] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3714/2025 Gopal Gupta S/o Shri Ghanshyam Gupta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post- Bhilwari, Tehsil- Pachpahad, District- Jhalawar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. District Collector (Land Record), Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 11/03/2025 1. The present petition is filed assailing the impugned transfer order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 and the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 whereby the learned RAT without considering the facts and circumstances of the case has dismissed the appeal bearing No.1760/2025, preferred by the petitioner/applicant. 2. Heard and considered and perused the material placed on record. 3. Upon considering the aforementioned, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has duly considered the vital aspects of the present matter and has passed a detailed order. Nevertheless, it is settled position of law that transfers are incidence of service and cannot be avoided. Accordingly, reliance [2025:RJ-JP:11071] (2 of 4) [CW-3714/2025] is ought to be placed upon the ratios encapsulated in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 and Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178. Thence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter. For the sake of convenience, the opinion spelled out in the order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the learned Tribunal is reproduced herein below: “5- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us izdj.k le;flag eh.kk cuke jktLFkku jkT; (2024 0 Supreme(Raj)851) fuf.kZr fnukad 09-07-2024 esa iVokfj;ksa ds LFkkukarj.k ds laca/k esa ifji= fnukad 05-05-1988 o 30-10- 1993 ds laca/k esa fuEu izdkj ls er O;Dr fd;k gS%& “8. The petitioners are working on the post of Patwari, which is a transferable post. It is well- settled principle that transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. An employee cannot, as a matter of right, claim to remain posted at a particular place. So far as the circulars dated 05.05.1989 and 30.10.1993 are concerned, the same are not mandatory in nature and just a transfer policy. Furthermore, by the order dated 17.06.2024, of which petitioner Suresh Kumar is aggrieved, he has been transferred from Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi, Tehsil Riyanbadi to Patwar Mandal Bhanwal, Tehsil Riyanbadi, i.e. within the same Tehsil. Transfer is an implied condition of service and the power is always vested in the Government to transfer an employee in administrative exigency. In the case at hand the [2025:RJ-JP:11071] (3 of 4) [CW-3714/2025] respondents have exercised this power for better administration. So far as the power to interfere in transfer orders is concerned, the law on the point is no more res integra in view of the catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court.” 6- vr% mDr fu;e esa ;g ekuk x;k gS fd mDr fn’kk&funsZ’k vkKid izd`fr ds ugha gS] oks dsoy LFkkukarj.k uhfr gksuk ekuk tk ldrk gSA mDr fu.kZ; esa ;g Hkh ekuk x;k gS fd LFkkukarj.k jktdh; lsok dk ,d Hkkx ,oa ljdkj iz’kklfud vko’;drkvksa dks ns[krs gq, fu;ekuqlkj vius deZpkjh dk LFkkukarj.k dj ldrh gS rkfd Bhd izdkj ls iz’kklu O;oLFkk j[kh tk ldsA 7- izdj.k f’kYih cksl ,oa vU; cuke fcgkj jkT; (1991 Supp (2) SCC 659) esa fuEu izdkj ls er O;Dr fd;k gS%& “In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High court over [2025:RJ-JP:11071] (4 of 4) [CW-3714/2025] looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” 8- vr% mijksDr U;kf;d dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ge ikrs gS fd l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk iz’kklfud vk/kkj ij fd, x, LFkkukarj.k vkns’k dks ifji= fnukad 30-10-1993 ds vk/kkj ij fof/k&fo:) gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS D;ksafd vihykFkhZ dk LFkkukarj.k fu;ekuqlkj iz’kklfud dkj.kksa ls fd;k x;k gSA ifji= fnukad 30-10-1993 dsoy ek= fn’kk&funsZ’k gS] vkKkid izd`fr ds ugha gSA 9- mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij ge vihykFkhZ ds laca/k esa ikfjr LFkkukarj.k vkns’k esa gLr{ksi djuk mfpr ugha ikrs gSA vr% ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA” 4. In view of the foregoing, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/s-322