[2025:RJ-JP:21352-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 569/2025 Pushpendra Meena S/o Shri Sohan Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Kho Ghati, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant 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 Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/05/2025 This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4738/2025 whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner against the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 as well as learned Tribunal’s order dated 11.03.2025 was dismissed. The appellant's grievance is that he was transferred from Dausa to Jodhpur, however, the Department erroneously mentioned the name of the office where the appellant was working in the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 and this mistake was reflected not only in the transfer order [2025:RJ-JP:21352-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-569/2025] dated 15.01.2025 but also in the subsequent order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant informed the Court that after passing the interim order, the respondents have corrected their mistake and the name of the Office where the appellant was working at the time of his transfer was corrected. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the appellant is working at the place of posting i.e. Dausa for more than eight years and the appellant who is a Government employee cannot claim to serve at a particular place of his choice as has been held by 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 where in para Nos. 3 & 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 [2025:RJ-JP:21352-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-569/2025] 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”. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/73