[2025:RJ-JP:51963] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19526/2025 Trilok Chand Verma S/o Sh. Nagar Mal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 132, Kaushaliya Resedency, Krishana Sagar, Mansarover, Jaipur, (Raj.), Presently Posted As Additional Administrative Officer, Agriculture Directorate, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) (Employee Id - Rjjp199619000273) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Secretary To Government, Agriculture And Horticulture, Department Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote Mr. Dikshant Jain Mr. Ashvini Raj Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Rahul Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/12/2025 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with following prayer: i. Call for the entire record of the case and examine the same; ii. by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Appeal No. 5009/2025 titled as Trilok Chand Verma vs. Secretary and others.; [2025:RJ-JP:51963] (2 of 7) [CW-19526/2025] iii. by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 19.11.2025; 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that before coming to Hon’ble Court, the petitioner has exhausted the remedy of filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, however, the same was dismissed on 05.12.2025. He further submitted that the transfer of the present petitioner is contrary to the general principles of administration. He submitted that Seema Bunker, wife of the present petitioner, is also a Government servant and is presently posted at Jaipur. 3. He further submitted that pursuant to the promotion order dated 18.01.2024, the present petitioner was posted at Jaipur, where he joined, and after a period of one year and ten months, he has been transferred to District Karauli. He submitted that other persons were accommodated and even now posts are available at Jaipur, but the petitioner has been malafidely transferred from Jaipur to Karauli. 4. He further submitted that this Hon’ble Court has also considered and accommodated several persons on the ground that husband and wife should be transferred and posted at the same place. He also submitted that the present petitioner has filed an affidavit to indicate that other persons were accommodated and posted at Jaipur. He cited and referred to certain names and documents. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned AAG, who, while relying upon the grounds taken in the reply, submitted [2025:RJ-JP:51963] (3 of 7) [CW-19526/2025] that earlier the present petitioner was promoted by order dated 18.01.2024 against the vacancy of 2023-24 (from 01.04.2023) and continued at the current place of posting with a clarification that the posting order shall be issued separately. He further submitted that the petitioner was earlier posted at Jaipur and pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2024, he was accommodated at Jaipur. He remained posted at Jaipur where he was given promotion, and no transfer order was issued. 6. He further submitted that the petitioner was transferred only vide order dated 19.11.2025 from Jaipur to Karauli. He submitted that this is a case of administrative exigency and no malafides are attached to the transfer order. He further submitted that a total of 331 employees were transferred by the impugned order and it is apparent on record that after promotion, the petitioner was transferred for the first time, on 19.11.2025 (impugned order) and therefore, no case is made out in his favour. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG on merits and perused the material placed on record. 8. The brief facts as mentioned by the petitioner indicate that the petitioner was appointed as LDC in the month of April, 1996 and thereafter promoted as UDC in the year 2013 and further in the year 2017 as Assistant Administrative Officer. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Administrative Officer against the vacancy for the year 2023–24 vide order dated 18.01.2024, pursuant to said order, petitioner joined in the Directorate on the very same [2025:RJ-JP:51963] (4 of 7) [CW-19526/2025] day. The petitioner was transferred vide impugned order dated 19.11.2025 from Jaipur to Karauli. 9. The first ground raised by the petitioner is that his wife, Smt. Seema Bunker, is also working in the School Education Department on the post of Teacher Grade-II (English) and is posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, and as per the transfer policy, both husband and wife are required to be posted at the same place or nearby place. Secondly, it was part of the pleadings before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal that the present petitioner is also indulged in activities related to departmental employees, and currently the President of the Departmental Coordination Committee. 10. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 5009/2025 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, which was dismissed on 05.12.2025 on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532. The petitioner claimed that his wife is working as Teacher Grade-II at Jaipur and to balance the family needs, he is required to be posted at Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record any transfer policy of the State Government or the respondent department. 11. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DoPT, has issued an Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2022 for framing of transfer policies by all cadres and for posting of husband and wife at the same station. The said O.M. highlighted that it is of [2025:RJ-JP:51963] (5 of 7) [CW-19526/2025] utmost importance to enhance the status of women in all walks of life and to enable them to lead a normal family life as also to ensure education and welfare of children. A Guidance issued for posting of husband and wife, who are in Government service, at the same station. 12. However, the petitioner is not in the service of the Government of India but in the service of the State Government of Rajasthan, wherein no such policy exists, therefore it is for the State Government to frame a similar policy to address the needs of its employees. In most of the petitions preferred before this Court, an approach has been adopted where husband and wife are in Government service, that they may be afforded an opportunity to submit a representation and till decision thereof, the transfer order was stayed. 13. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted that his wife is working at Jaipur and he has been transferred from Jaipur to Karauli. Now coming to the second ground, the petitioner is aged about 53 years and claims that vide order dated 18.01.2024, he was promoted and posted at Jaipur and within one year and ten months, he has been transferred to another place. The order dated 18.01.2024 and Annexure-R/2 indicate that the present petitioner was promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit to the post in Pay Matrix Level-11. The order dated 18.01.2024 clearly indicates that pursuant to the promotion order 22 employees, who were working at their current place of posting were allowed to continue till final posting/transfer [2025:RJ-JP:51963] (6 of 7) [CW-19526/2025] orders were issued. The petitioner joined pursuant to the order dated 18.01.2024, at same place where he was working earlier. 14. The aforesaid facts indicate that the present petitioner was already posted at Jaipur prior to the promotion order dated 18.01.2024. Change of office room or controlling officer at the same place does not mean an actual transfer from one station to another station. The petitioner has not placed on record since when he has been posted at Jaipur. The order dated 18.01.2024 was issued only to give effect to the recommendation of the DPC and the petitioner continued at the same place for one year and ten months. The petitioner has not disclosed his place of posting for the last five years; therefore, no ground is made out that he has been retransferred within a short span. 15. The petitioner has also pleaded before the Tribunal that he is an active office bearer of the employees’ organization. There is no document on record to show that the petitioner was harassed or victimized and transfer was effected due to any malice. The petitioner was elected on 26.02.2024, but the transfer dated 19.11.2025 has been effected meaning thereby after one year and nine months. The ground of malice is not established. 16. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances, though the petitioner has a case on the ground of husband and wife being government service, however, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Additional Administrative Officer and all persons cannot be accommodated at one [2025:RJ-JP:51963] (7 of 7) [CW-19526/2025] place. The petitioner has been working at Jaipur for several years, though the exact period has not been mentioned, thus he cannot claim a right to remain posted at Jaipur merely because his wife is posted at Jaipur. 17. If the petitioner has been transferred to Karauli, he may request the Education Department to consider transfer of his wife to Karauli. Since the transfer of the present petitioner has been effected after several years, no vested right is created in his favour to remain posted at Jaipur. 18. Having taken note of the age of the petitioner and all other circumstances, no case for interference is made out in the instant case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The right of representation has already been granted by the Tribunal. 19. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /557