[2025:RJ-JP:50878] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18143/2025 Narendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 2/710, Housing Board, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan - 301019. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Senior Deputy Secretary, Department Of Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi Mr. Ayush Singh Mr. Ishan Verma Mr. Yashovardhan Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avanish Kumar Sharma, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/12/2025 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned transfer order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by the Respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner who is working on the post of Joint Director Training, Office of Director Apprenticeship and State Apprenticeship Advisor, Jaipur has been transferred on the post of Joint Director Training, Office of Commissioner, Tribal Area Development Department, Udaipur may kindly [2025:RJ-JP:50878] (2 of 6) [CW-18143/2025] be declared as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned transfer order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure-1) passed by the Respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties at his current place of posting i.e. Director Training, Office of Director Apprenticeship and State Apprenticeship Advisor, Jaipur until his superannuation. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by impugned order dated 19.11.2025, the petitioner, who was working on the post of Joint Director Training, Office of Director Apprenticeship and State Apprenticeship Advisor, Jaipur, has been transferred on the post of Joint Director Training, Office of Commissioner TAD Department, Udaipur. He also submits that petitioner is likely to be superannuated on 31.08.2026 and only less than 9 months are remaining in his service. He further submits that the petitioner has approached the Service Tribunal before approaching this Hon’ble Court, but his appeal was dismissed on 01.08.2025. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has further placed reliance order dated 17.10.2025 in S.B. CWP No.16216/2025 titled as Gopal Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. passed by this Court and submits that in identical matter, this Hon’ble Court has granted stay and given a liberty to represent before the respondents. He further submits that an identical issue was also considered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services [2025:RJ-JP:50878] (3 of 6) [CW-18143/2025] Appellate Tribunal & Ors., (2000) 2 WLC 725 and Magraj Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. S.A.W. No.1037/2017. He also referred order dated 16.10.2025 in S.B. CWP No.15863/2025 titled as Ram Chandra Singh Bagaria Vs. State of Rajasthan and submits that the petitioner was harassed and maliciously transferred from Jaipur to Udaipur. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for protection from this Hon’ble Court. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents on the grounds that in service record, the residential address of present petition is of Bikaner, whereas the petitioner has submitted a representation from address of Jaipur. He further submits that record indicate different addresses of the petitioner and it has became very difficult for the Department to serve any communication upon the respondents. He also submits that the petitioner is in cadre of Joint Director and there is only one post at Jaipur else other posts are at different headquarters. He further submits that a disciplinary proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner and a copy of same is placed on record. He further submits that there is no malice rather the petitioner has misused this authority and he is not entitled for any relief from this Hon’ble Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. The petitioner is in cadre of Joint Director with respondent and having DoB as 18.06.1966, is likely to be superannuated on 31.08.2026. It clearly indicate that there are less than 9 months in superannuation of present petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:50878] (4 of 6) [CW-18143/2025] 7. Normally, a person who is likely to be superannuated within 2 years of his/her remaining service, has to be posted either near hometown or should not be disturbed from current place. This policy is well recognized by the Court of law and based on this policy, we have considered the case of Gopal Lal Meena (supra) and also Ram Chandra Singh Bagaria (supra) and given a liberty to them to file a representation and stayed the operation of the transfer order till consideration and decision of representation. 8. The material on record also indicate that present petitioner was made APO vide order dated 10.06.2025 and same was challenged by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12346/2025. A Coordinate Bench while considering the case of petitioner, has stayed the operation of order dated 10.06.2025, but given a liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order. The material on record indicate that there are 16 posts in Joint Director Cadre and one of them is at TAD Udaipur. The chart clearly indicate that one post each at Ajmer, Bharatpur, Bikaner, Jodhpur, Kota and two posts each at Jodhpur and Udaipur. The material on record also indicate that the petitioner was made APO on 10.06.2025, when he was posted at Jaipur. The order dated 19.11.2025 also indicate that present petitioner was transferred after approval of the Chief Minister from Jaipur to Udaipur. 9. The material on record also indicate that some complaints were received against the petitioner, and on basis of these complaints, initially an order dated 10.06.2025 was passed, whereby the petitioner was placed under Awaiting Posting Order (APO), but after intervention by this Court on 21.08.2025, the petitioner was directed to mark his attendance at Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:50878] (5 of 6) [CW-18143/2025] Ultimately, the petitioner was transferred by a single transfer order on 19.11.2025. The record submitted by the respondents clearly indicate that there were several complainants against the petitioner and even the petitioner was served a charge-sheet by the Department. 10. The material on record also indicate that in “Service Book” the address of Bikaner is mentioned, whereas in one of the application, the address of Udaipur was mentioned. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has mentioned address of Bhiwadi, District Alwar. The issue of different address were seriously raised by learned counsel for respondents. 11. Herein in this case, there is no material to substantiate any fact of malafides and moreover, there is only one post at Jaipur and two posts each at Udaipur and Jodhpur, thus accommodation lies at the hands of the respondents, who is an employer. 12. Herein this case, the petitioner is also liable to follow discipline of service and if he failed to adhere the discipline in the service then he is subject to an action, which includes transfer. Normally, a transfer is an incident of service and it cannot be treated as punishment. Herein this case, after the complaints of pressurising the subordinates and also the harassment, the petitioner was made APO and later, he was transferred. Now, the petitioner is again before this Court for interference. 13. The petitioner has to make out a strong case for interference. We agree with the proposition as made by learned counsel for respondents that normally, an employee should not be transferred when two years are left to his superannuation. As in the instant case, less than 9 months are remaining and petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:50878] (6 of 6) [CW-18143/2025] is going to be superannuated on 31.08.2026. There is no statutory rules to enforce this policy, but still considering the inconvenience, I am of the view that normally, the employee should not be transferred when his remaining service is of less than two years. In the instant case, there are some issues, which relates to indiscipline and on ground of indiscipline, the petitioner was initially made APO to later on intervention by this Court, he was placed at Jaipur, where he was earlier working before the passing of order of APO, but now, he has been transferred by a single order, due to administrative reasons. 14. There is nothing on record to prove bias or malafide, therefore, there is no ground for interference in the transfer order, as it is not possible to accommodate petitioner at Jaipur because there is only one post at Jaipur. 15. Considering aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant writ petition preferred by petitioner, is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. 17. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /486