SANJEEV SHARMA S/O SHRI BHAIRU LAL SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/340/2026 · 2026-02-04
Anand Sharma
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14991 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 14991 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:5164] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 340/2026 Sanjeev Sharma S/o Shri Bhairu Lal Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village And Post Lisariya Tehsil Srimadhopur District Sikar (Rajasthan) At Present Working On The Post Of Head Constable (B.no. 196) At Police Station Ghasa District Udaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary (Home), Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police Headquarter, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan Jaipur
4. Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur District (Rajasthan)
5. Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur (Rural) (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Vyas with Mr. Tanay Jareda For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 04/02/2026
1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondents to consider his case for transfer from District Udaipur to Jaipur. It is a settled proposition of law that transfer and posting are in the sole domain of the employer and this Court, while exercising the writ jurisdiction cannot be
[2026:RJ-JP:5164] (2 of 2) [CW-340/2026] issue any directions to post any particular employee in a particular place.
2. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted a liberty to make a representation before the respondent No.2 for redressing his grievances.
3. In view of limited prayer, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner submit a representation before the respondent No.2, who shall consider and decide the same within a period of two months strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.
4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of this case.
(ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/15