[2025:RJ-JP:8850] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3043/2025 Sachin Kumar Bhati S/o Shri Raj Kumar Bhati, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of New Govindpuri, Kankar Khera, Meerut Cant., Uttar Pradesh At Present Gokul Sarover, Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Though Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur-302005 2. The Secretary (Admn.), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur- 302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 28/02/2025 1. The present petition is filed assailing the transfer order dated 15.01.2025, whereby, the petitioner is transferred from the office of Assistant Engineer (O&M) Kotputli, Urban City-II to the office of Assistant Engineer A-I City-II, Tonk. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is subjected to transfer many times within a period of less than one year in an arbitrary manner. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioners’ elder daughter is an autistic child and is undergoing a treatment, therefore, change [2025:RJ-JP:8850] (2 of 2) [CW-3043/2025] in place would cause serious difficulties and hardship qua the child and the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing on advance copy has submitted that for a period of last four years, the petitioner is based in Kotputli and the frequent transfer orders as alleged are merely on account of change in office. It is further submitted that in the District Tonk akin facilities as there in Kotputli are available. 5. Heard and considered. 6. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances, taking note of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court relying upon the dictum encapsulated in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659., wherein, it is opined that that Court should not interfere in the transfer orders unless same are passed in an arbitrary manner and suffers from malice, and are dehors the rules and transfer policy, therefore, this Court finds no malice in the transfer order, thus, not inclined to interfere in the present petition. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed in light of Shilpi Bose (supra). 8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /121