[2026:RJ-JP:13348] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5715/2026 Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Harlal Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Nadipura Mohalla, Ward No.43, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner 3. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. Principal, Govt. Sr. Sec. School Birol, Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Garssa Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pooja Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Sharma Additional Advocate General. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 30/03/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 19.03.2026 passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby, appeal filed by the petitioner against transfer order dated 10.01.02026 and relieving order dated 16.03.2026 has been dismissed. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was holding the post of Lecturer (Geography) at Government Senior Secondary School, Birol, District Jhunjhunu. However, vide order dated 10.01.2026, he was transferred to [2026:RJ-JP:13348] (2 of 3) [CW-5715/2026] Government Senior Secondary School, Bhaleri, District Churu. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while issuing transfer order, it was ignored by the competent authority that there was general ban over transfers by Department of General Administration, Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 03.11.2025, specifically restraining transfers of employees or the officials who have been deputed in election duties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since impugned transfer order dated 10.01.2026 was affected by general ban, therefore, initially, the respondents themselves withdrew that order vide order dated 13.01.2026 specifying that transfer orders ought not have been passed in respect of employees deputed for election duties. Learned counsel submits that grievance of the petitioner is that although transfer order was withdrawn by the respondents themselves, yet in quite arbitrary and illegal manner, same has been revived vide order dated 12.03.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue has not been properly considered by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the petitioner against transfer order and appeal has been dismissed in quite mechanical and causal manner without recording cogent reasons and proper findings over the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. It is settled proposition of law that the transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim to be posted at a particular place for all times to come. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner challenged transfer order mainly on the ground that at the time of issuance of transfer [2026:RJ-JP:13348] (3 of 3) [CW-5715/2026] order, he was already deputed for carrying out election duties and there was general ban for transferring any employee/official who has been deputed in election duties. However, it has also been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to not disturb the officials who have been deputed for election duties, the respondents themselves withdrew transfer orders with a condition that such transfers orders shall be issued only after getting permission from Election Department or Appropriate Authority. 8. As the ban imposed in respect of transfers was effective till 07.02.2026, when the ban was over, vide order dated 12.03.2026, the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan revived earlier transfer order with a caveat that no employee shall be relieved without permission of the Election Officer in case he/she is still deputed for election duties. This Court does not find any error in the action of the respondents, more so, when order dated 12.03.2026 was never put to challenge by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal has decided the appeal of the petitioner after meticulously examining the facts of the case and material on record as also law prevailing at the relevant time and after recording sound findings. 9. In the light of above, no interference in the present is warranted and writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /42