[2025:RJ-JP:8170-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 130/2025 Anurag Mishra S/o Shri Bipin Kumar Mishra, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of 13-C, Block-B, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan) Employee Id - Rjto2016536040316 Now Posted As Assistant Town Planner, Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Local Self, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Secretary-Iii, Urban Development And Housing Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner And Secretary, Local Self Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. Secretary, Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer. 5. Ankit Goyal, Assistant Town Planner (Newly Appointed) Now Posted At Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer. 6. Rubee Singh, Executive Member Of Bjp Kishan Morcha, Rajasthan, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gordhan Singh Fauzdar For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/02/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2459/2025. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been transferred by the respondents vide order dated 15.01.2025 from Ajmer to Tonk in a mala fide manner and due to [2025:RJ-JP:8170-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-130/2025] political influence. He further submits that the person who has been posted against the post of the appellant is working on probation, he cannot be transferred or relieved during the period of probation. He further submits that in similar circumstances, the tribunal is passing the stay orders. He further submits that the old parents are solely dependent on the appellant and not keeping good health. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the matter of Bhola Dutt Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.2513/2022 & CMP No.4684/2022) decided on 26.04.2022 and another judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8440/2010) decided on 25.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 has held as under:- “3.The High Court, in interfering with the order of transfer, has relied on two circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a result of the stay on the order of transfer, the headquarters of the respondent will remain at Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his headquarters will continue to remain at Mumbai. The second reason, which was weighed with the High Court, is that the spouse of the respondent suffers from a cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of these reasons can furnish a valid justification [2025:RJ-JP:8170-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-130/2025] for the High Court to take recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in passing an order of injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer was either mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court could not have dictated to the employer as to where the respondent should be posted during the period of suspension. Individual hardships are matters for the Union of India, as an employer, to take a dispassionate view. 4.However, we are categorically of the view that the impugned order of the High Court interfering with the order of transfer was in excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise of judicial power. We are constrained to observe that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the settled principles and precedents which have consistently been enunciated and followed by this Court. The manner in which judicial power has been exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful order of transfer is disquieting. We express our disapproval”. This appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the appellant who is a government employee cannot claim to serve at particular place of his choice, secondly, the appellant has not impleaded the Minister in charge as party respondent in the present appeal, although, the allegation of mala fide has been levelled by him, thirdly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. (supra), in our view, no case is made out for interference by this Court. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /30