[2025:RJ-JP:2852] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 947/2025 Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Flat No. S-2, 107, Vivek Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jan Path Jaipur- 302005. 2. Secretary (Administration), Vidyut Bhawan Jan Path Jaipur- 302005. 3. Director (Finance), Jaipur Discom, Vidyut Bhawan Jan Path Jaipur- 302005 4. Chandan Kumar Moolchandani, AAO (IA-Rev/J/Z), Old Power House, Jaipur Discom, Ram Mandir, Jaipur- Under Transfer On The Post Of as AO (EA), Jaipur-302006. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 21/01/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure- 7). Further, learned counsel has submitted that recently in the year 2024 the petitioner was transferred from Alwar to Jaipur, on his own request, due to certain medical difficulties/health issues faced by his mother, who is a senior citizen (approximately 81 years of age). Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is on verge of superannuation, therefore, passing transfer orders [2025:RJ-JP:2852] (2 of 3) [CW-947/2025] against his posting from Jaipur back to Alwar, is against the policies of the employer. Moreover, there is sufficient manpower to accommodate the administrative exigencies and the petitioner should be considered as an exception. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents Shri Sandeep Singh Shekhawat has raised preliminary objection and has submitted that the instant matter is not a subject of judicial review, nor any malafides are alleged. It is further submitted that from the year 2013-2022 and 2024 onwards the petitioner was posted in Jaipur only. Further, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner was promoted on 15.07.2024 and thereafter on account of administrative exigencies, he was placed on a higher pedestal. To substantiate the contentions made insofar, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, and has averred that no judicial interference should be made, until there are any malafides. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was posted on a same place for a substantial period and following the judicial discipline spelled out in the ratio of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659, Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Ors reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 148, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574 and S.K. Nausad Rahaman vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in [2025:RJ-JP:2852] (3 of 3) [CW-947/2025] (2022) 12 SCC 1, regarding the scope of judicial review/interference in transfer orders this Court deems it apposite to dismiss the instant petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to immediately join the duties and comply with the terms and conditions of the impugned order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/37