[2025:RJ-JP:3302] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1084/2025 Ramavtar Meena S/o Late Shri Moolya Ram Meena, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 2/07, Kalisindh Super Thermal Power Project Colony, Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Energy Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director. 3. Chief Engineer, Kalisindh Super Thermal Power Project, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam, Jhalawar. 4. Joint Director Personnel, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam, Jhalawar. 5. Deputy Director (Personnel), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 23/01/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the transfer of the petitioner (at serial number 62 of Annexure-5) is effectuated by malafide, as a transfer order is passed whereby the petitioner is transferred at a distance of approximately 800 Kms from Jaipur to Jaisalmer region, on the post of Assistant Engineer at Jaisalmer region, however, it is specified that on the said place of posting to personnel are already working therefore, if the petitioner is made to join on the said place of posting he shall be [2025:RJ-JP:3302] (2 of 4) [CW-1084/2025] posted therein as an auxiliary officer without having any vacant post. 2. Further, the present transfer posting is given by way of Annexure-1 is vindictive, as the same is made for the reason that the petitioner has given adverse report against an influential and affluent contractor (private-respondent). 3. Learned Senior Counsel has marked presence as a caveator and has submitted that transfer is effectuated on account of administrative exigencies and the same is incidence of service. 4. It is further submitted that more than 70 persons are transferred by way of a composite transfer order. Further, the contention of the petitioner that a complaint/adverse report was made by the petitioner against one of the contractors and due to the same the said transfer is passed is fallacious as the said complaint was made in the month of April, 2024 and transfer is effected in the year 2025. 5. Heard and considered. 6. At the outset, it is noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, through a plethora of judgments, has time and again held that the permissibility and scope of judicial review against transfer orders is minuscule. The rationale exercised to circumscribe the Courts interference with transfer orders whilst exercising writ jurisdiction, primarily pertains to the fact that a bedlam of an aggravated magnitude shall ensue within the workings of the Government, if all employees, posted at a location of their liking, refuse to and/or contest their postings, when issued on account of administrative exigencies. Inevitably, the only scope of interference subsists in an [2025:RJ-JP:3302] (3 of 4) [CW-1084/2025] eventuality where the transfer orders are issued on account of certain malafides, at the end of the transferring authority. 7. The consideration regarding which employee should be posted ‘where’, falls purely within the administrative domain of the appropriate authority/department to decide, in the best interests of the working of the said department, whilst seeking to advance the department’s resultant output and service efficiency. Unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or is passed in violation of any applicable statutory provisions, the Courts ought not to extend interference in such orders. By logical deduction, it is made rather obvious that no Government will be able to smoothly function if the Government Servants insist that once appointed or posted in a particular place, they should continue at such place, as long as they desire whilst meeting out their individualistic and familial ease. The fact of the transfer being an indispensable part of an employee’s service is of paramount importance, which often loses favourability at the end of the employee, when they become comfortable with the place of their choosing. 8. It is noted that a government employee, posted at a location of their liking, does not have the fundamental protection to continue serving at the said location, especially in light of the fact that the incident of transfer, is a part and parcel of the conditions of service, when employed on a transferable post. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score alone, the order of transfer cannot be struck down. Administrative exigencies ought to prevail and/or take precedence over the familial and individualistic priorities of the employees [2025:RJ-JP:3302] (4 of 4) [CW-1084/2025] posted on transferable jobs. The only eventuality, where the Courts may extend interference in transfer orders, is when the transfer orders violate an applicable statute or are passed on account of certain malice. However, in the matter in hand the history of posting of the petitioner makes it unambiguous that the petitioner was posted in Jaipur for past approximately 5 years and hence the transfer order passed at this nascent juncture is only a result of administrative exigencies. 9. In support of the aforesaid reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in 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 (2022) 12 SCC 1. 10. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances, the petitioner is granted a liberty to file a representation before the competent authority, and the same is to be decided considering the administrative exigencies and the governing policy. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /67