[2025:RJ-JP:12509] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2826/2025 Dr Virpal Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o D- 175, Moti Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur 302015 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Higher And Technical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Director, Technical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur. 4. Principal, Government Ram Chandra Khaitan Polytechnic College, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Bapna, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr. Meyhul Mittal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vidyadhar Gathala, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 19/03/2025 1. Present petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) by suitable writ, order or direction, the transfer orders dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure-5) in so far as it relates to the petitioner may kindly be quashed; ii) by suitable writ, order or direction, the order of rejection of the petitioner’s representation dated on 13.02.2025 (Annexure-10) may kindly be quashed; iii) by suitable writ, order or direction, the relieving order dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure-11) may kindly be quashed; [2025:RJ-JP:12509] (2 of 6) [CW-2826/2025] iv) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be also granted in favour of the petitioner. v) Cost of the present proceedings may also be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.” 2. It is contended that the petitioner who is working as Chemistry Lecturer was given permission to seek higher studies on 19.10.2023 (Annexure-2) from Biyani Law College, Jaipur in evening session qua three years LLB Course. It is further submitted that petitioner has completed two years of the said course and will soon third year of the said course will commence. In light of the same, it is submitted that in the erstwhile round of litigation in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3512/2024, vide order dated 06.03.2024 an interim protection was made operative in favor of the petitioner. 3. It is analyzed that vide final order dated 20.12.2024, this Court, after considering the vital aspects of the matters and the contentions made therein, had granted liberty to a number of petitioners (vis-a-vis the petitions pertaining to the years in between 2015-2024) to file representations before the competent authority. In compliance of the said direction, the petitioner has filed a representation which was considered by the respondents and response qua the same was given by order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-10) whereby the petitioner was directed to join at the new place of posting in pursuance to order dated 20.12.2024. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure-11) the petitioner was relieved and was directed to join at the transferred place. 4. Consecutively, learned counsel has submitted that by the present petition the orders dated 13.02.2025 and 15.02.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:12509] (3 of 6) [CW-2826/2025] are also assailed along with the impugned transfer order dated 20.02.2024. Nevertheless, the Court being considerate towards the prevailing circumstances had directed to call the competent authority along with the records. 5. Per contra, learned AGC has vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the respondents have duly considered the grievances of the petitioner and the said transfer order is passed considering the administrative exigencies, history of posting of the petitioner-employee and to aid the smooth functioning of the respondent-department. 6. After hearing the arguments made by the learned senior counsel and the counsel representing the respondents, scanning the records and the material available on record, this Court is of the following opinion: 6.1 That the petitioner is working on the post of Chemistry Lecturer in the respondent-department. 6.2 That from a bare perusal of the Annexure-2 i.e. letter dated 19.10.2023, it is noted that the petitioner was posted at CIG on account of certain arrangements, the petitioner was given permission for further studies subject to the condition that he will not be given any benefit and his service conditions will not be relaxed, meaning thereby at his own risk. 6.3 That the present is a case with unique set of facts wherein, a Chemistry Lecturer, has sought permission to pursue a professional degree in law; at the age of approximately 50 years. 6.4 That in the three year degree course, two years is for academic degree and third year is specifically for a provisional [2025:RJ-JP:12509] (4 of 6) [CW-2826/2025] degree, as contended by learned Senior Counsel that two years course is already completed by the petitioner. 6.5 That transfer is an incidence of service, nevertheless, considering the administrative exigencies, transfer orders can be passed. Moreover, there is no ground of interference in the instant transfer order, specially for further studies, which has no relevance with the stream of the petitioner. 6.6 That the learned Tribunal has passed a well detailed order, after considering the contentions of the petitioner/appellant therein. The relevant extract from the same is reproduced herein below: “izdj.k ds rF;ksa] vfHkopuksa ,oa vfHkys[k ls izdV gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk vkyksP; LFkkukUrj.k vkns’k fnukad 20- 02-2024 ¼vuqyXud&1½ ds fo:) vuqrks"k pkgk xz;k gS] ftlesa vihykFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k jktdh; jkepUnz [ksrku ikWfy- egkfo|ky;] t;iqj ¼dk;ZO;oLFkkFkZ lh-bZ-th- t;iqj½ ls dk;ZO;oLFkkFkZ fujLr dj jktdh; ikWfy- egkfo|ky; mPpSu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ orZeku inLFkkiu LFky ij lu~ 2019 ls dk;Zjr gSA vkyksP; vkns’k l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk fcuk fdlh nqHkkZouk ds ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA vihykFkhZ dks ,y,ych dh vuqefr foHkkx ds vkns’k fnukad 18-10-2023 }kjk lsok esa fdlh izdkj dk ykHk ugha fn;s tkus dh 'krZ ds v/;/khu nh x;h gSA mPp v/;;u ,y,ych iw.kZ fd;s tkus ij foHkkx dks fdlh izdkj ykHk ugha gS ,oa u gh Nk=ksa ds 'kS{kf.kd Lrj esa fdlh izdkj dh o`f) gksxhA vr% vkyksP; vkns’k esa dksbZ fof/kd folaxfr ifjyf{kr ugha gksrh gS lkFk gh fu;eksa dk mYya?ku ;k nqHkkZouk Hkh utj ugha vkrh gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us f’kYih cksl cuke fcgkj jkT; ¼,-vkbZ-vkj- 1991 ,l-lh- 532½ ds izdj.k esa jktdh; dkfeZdksa ds LFkkukUrj.k ds fo"k; esa fuEu izdkj vo/kkfjr fd;k gS %& In our opinion the Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and [2025:RJ-JP:12509] (5 of 6) [CW-2826/2025] for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. lsokfof/k dk lqLFkkfir fl)kar gS fd LFkkukUrj.k lsok dk ,d vfHkUu rRo gksrk gSA LFkkukUrj.k djuk] fu;ksDrk dk vf/kdkj gS vkSj vihykFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k x;k gS] bl dkj.k LFkkukUrj.k vkns’k esa gLr{ksi djuk mfpr ugha gSA vihykFkhZ us vihy esa Lo;a dk nwjLFk LFkkukUrj.k fd, tkus dk vfHkdFku Hkh fd;k gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us Hkxokunkl feRry ,oa vU; cuke jktLFkku jkT; MCY;w-,y-lh- 2007¼2½ 276 esa fuEu izdkj vo/kkfjr fd;k gS%& So far as plea that the transfer has been made to a far away place, it cannot be interfered with for the reason that the employee has to work in the state wherever he/she is posted. The plea of posting at a distance from one place to another is immaterial. It does not involve any violation of service Rule. vr% bl vk/kkj ij vkyksP; LFkkukUrj.k vkns’k esa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA izR;FkhZ foHkkx dks vihykFkhZ dks fu;ekuqlkj ;k=k HkRrk ,oa ;ksxdky vof/k Lohd`r djus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gSA vr% mi;qZDr leLr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ dh vihy cyghu ,oa lkjghu gksus ls [kkfjt ;ksX; gksus ds dkj.k ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA “ 7. In light of the observation noted insofar and while placing reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659 this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter. The petitioner is directed to join the service within [2025:RJ-JP:12509] (6 of 6) [CW-2826/2025] a period of three working days, from the date of passing of this order, at the transferred place of posting, in order to avoid disciplinary proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/s-248