Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9237 (RAJ)

RAJPAL S/O SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD BHUKAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/10741/2026 · 2026-06-23

Ravi Chirania

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:23526] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10741/2026 Rajpal S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Bhukar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Gothra Bhukaran, Via Kudan, Sikar (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Depart- ment Of School Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Lalgarh Palace, Bikaner. 3. Mahendra Singh Gaur, Principal, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Jewaliyawas, District Didwana-Kuchaman, Ra- jasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.) Order 23/06/2026 1. The petitioner has moved this civil writ petition challenging the impugned transfer order dated 25.05.2026. Learned counsel submits that earlier the petitioner had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18226/2026, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.11.2025 granted interim protection by staying the operation of the impugned transfer order dated 22.09.2025 as well as relieving order dated 23.09.2025 till the disposal of the representation of petitioner by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to direction of this Court, the respondent decided the representation of petitioner. However, the same was decided in an arbitrary, illegal [2026:RJ-JP:23526] (2 of 3) [CW-10741/2026] and capricious manner, without properly considering the grievance raised therein. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has once again approached this Court by way of a writ petition. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been transferred only to accommodate respondent No. 3 and that there is no administrative exigency warranting the impugned transfer. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner's wife is serving on the same post in District Sikar and that, in terms of the policy of the Government, husband and wife are ordinarily required to be posted at the same place. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon the Government instructions dated 24.11.2022, whereby all departments have been directed to give due consideration to cases where husband and wife are serving in Government employment and to endeavor to post them at the same place. 4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier challenged the transfer order dated 22.09.2025 and had been granted interim protection by this Court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's representation was considered and decided by the competent authority. Merely because the decision taken on the representation is not favourable to the petitioner would not furnish a fresh cause for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 5. Transfer is an incidence of service and, unless shown to be vitiated by malafides or in violation of any statutory provision, this Court would ordinarily not interfere in such matters. No material has been placed on record to warrant interference with the [2026:RJ-JP:23526] (3 of 3) [CW-10741/2026] impugned transfer order. This Court also takes note of the fact that the academic session is about to commence and the availability of Principals and teaching staff at their respective places of posting is a matter of administrative importance. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 6. However, considering the fact that the petitioner's wife is also serving in the same department, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the State Government seeking adjustment/posting of his spouse at the place where the petitioner is presently posted, in terms of the applicable Government policy. 7. In case such a representation is submitted, the State Government shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law and the applicable policy, as expeditiously as possible. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.)),J RACHNA/159