[2025:RJ-JP:39739-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1185/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13413/2025 Mithlesh Meena W/o Shri Kaushal Kishor Meena, R/o Village Bhindi Post Jaloda Tehsil Keshoraipatan, District Bundi, Rajasthan- 323301 Presently Working As Teacher Grade Iii (Level-I) At Government Primary School, Potliyon Ki Dhani, Block Sindhari District Balotara, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary Elementary Education, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Bundi, Rajasthan. 4. District Education Office, Elementary Education, District Balotara, Rajasthan. 5. Bharat Kumar S/o Champa Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Presently Working As Teacher Grade Iii (Level-I) Rajkiya Ucch Madhyamik Vidyalay, Ghat Ka Barana Block Keshoraipatan District Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arpit Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 26/09/2025 This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 10.09.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:39739-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1185/2025] Grievance of the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge was for transfer in place of respondent No.5 by mutual consent of both the teachers. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 10.09.2025 observed as under:- “1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred an application for his mutual transfer qua respondent No.5 but the official respondents No.1 to 4 are not acceeding to their request and the mutual transfer, as sought, has not get been ordered. 2. The prayer made by the petitioner is totally misconceived. It is a well settled proposition of law that the employer is the best person to decide the place of posting of the respective employees. Merely, on account of the fact that some request for mutual transfer has been preferred by any employee, does not mean that the respondent-Government is under an obligation to pass order at the request of the concerned employee. 3. It is well within the rights of the State Government to post their employees as per the administrative exigency and in the interest of public at large. 4. In view of above, there is no scope for interference under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed.” We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We are of the considered view that the employer is the best person to take work from its employees and an employee cannot ask for serving at a particular place of his choice. [2025:RJ-JP:39739-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1185/2025] In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference made by this Court. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /77