[2025:RJ-JP:14822] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4738/2025 Pushpendra Meena S/o Shri Sohan Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Kho Ghati, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Economics And Statistics Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director And Joint Secretary, Economics And Statistics Directorate, Jaipur 3. Shri Kamal Kumar Sharma, Computor, O/o Block Statistics Officer, Dholpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. S C Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 02/04/2025 1. The present petition is filed assailing the impugned group transfer order dated 15.01.2025 and the learned Tribunal order dated 11.03.2025 passed in Appeal No. 357/2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from a bare perusal of the impugned transfer order, it can be noted that there is a complete non-application of mind. It is further submitted that the petitioner is facing undue hardship as transfer order is passed transferring the petitioner-employee approximately 400 Kms far from Dausa to Jodhpur. 3. Learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents committed mistake and passed the order of transfer without [2025:RJ-JP:14822] (2 of 3) [CW-4738/2025] application of mind nevertheless, have subsequently issued an order dated 28.02.2025, but such order cannot be allowed to validate the illegality committed by the respondents in issuing the order of transfer which is non-executable order and therefore, any subsequent order/ corrigendum cannot make the earlier order executable when its originate and genesis was faulty. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the history of posting of the petitioner signifies that the petitioner is working on the same post at the said place from past 10 years, nonetheless, the said transfer order was passed after taking note of the administrative exigencies. It is also submitted that the impugned transfer order is not an order passed qua a single person, but approximately 100 employees were transferred from different regions however, certain typographical errors were corrected by a subsequent corrigendum/order. 5. Having heard the rival contentions, upon a perusal of the material available on record and taking note of the opinion formulated and noted in the order passed by the learned RAT, this Court is of the view that the impugned transfer order was passed in pursuance of a group of employees considering the administrative exigencies and their history of posting. Moreover, learned RAT has duly considered the vital aspects of the matter in hand prior to adjudication of the lis. Withal, reliance can be placed upon judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 wherein, it is held as under: “4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the [2025:RJ-JP:14822] (3 of 3) [CW-4738/2025] 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 looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders.” 6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matter. There are no illegalities in the order passed by the learned RAT i.e. order dated 11.03.2025; hence the same is upheld. The petitioner is directed to join at the new/transferred place of posting, pronto. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/138