Probation No Ground to Withhold Relieving on Transfer: HC

Transfer-Order Condition Barring Relieving of Probationers Not Sustainable, Rules Contain No Such Bar: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 3 November 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court directed that a Junior Assistant on probation, transferred from the District Election Officer's office at Rajsamand to Khairthal-Tijara by a Board of Revenue order of 10 July 2026, be relieved forthwith and his joining accepted (paras 2, 11-12). Following the Division Bench in Govind, it held that probation alone, absent a statutory prohibition, is no valid ground to withhold relieving, so Note No. 3 could not be sustained to that extent (paras 8-9).

Key holdings

Following the Division Bench in Govind, the Court recorded that the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 do not prohibit transferring a probationer, and authorities cannot impose a condition outside the applicable rules (para 8).

Probation alone, absent an applicable statutory prohibition, is no valid ground to withhold relieving under a duly issued transfer order (para 9).

Note No. 3 of the transfer order cannot be sustained insofar as it bars a probationer’s relieving solely on account of probation (para 9).

The Rajsamand office must relieve the petitioner forthwith, and the Khairthal-Tijara office must accept his joining report (paras 11-12).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, a Junior Assistant, was serving as a probationer at the office of the District Election Officer, Rajsamand when an order of 10 July 2026 issued by the Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, transferred him to the District Election Officer's office at Khairthal-Tijara (para 2). He was not relieved, because Note No. 3 appended to the transfer order said that an employee under suspension or undergoing probation would not be relieved to join at the new place (para 3). He called the condition arbitrary and said nothing in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 bars a probationer's transfer (para 4). The State relied on Note No. 3 and said transfer and posting lie within the employer's domain (paras 6-7).

Court's Findings

The Court held that the case was covered by the Division Bench decision in Govind v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1180/2026, decided on 1 October 2026) (para 8). As the Court recorded it, the Division Bench held that, in the absence of any statutory prohibition against transferring an employee during probation, the authorities cannot impose a condition outside the applicable rules, and observed that the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 do not prohibit transferring a probationer from one place of posting to another (para 8). Applying that position, it held that the mere fact that the petitioner was on probation could not, without an applicable statutory prohibition, be a valid ground for withholding his relieving under a duly issued transfer order (para 9). Note No. 3, so far as it prohibits relieving a probationer solely because of probationary status, therefore could not be sustained in the facts of the case (para 9). It recorded that it had examined the judgments placed by both sides, including Ram Swaroop, put forward by the State (paras 7-8). The finding is confined to probationers; the suspension limb of Note No. 3 is not addressed (paras 3, 9).

Legal Principle

Where the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 contain no prohibition on transferring a probationer, the authorities cannot impose a condition outside the rules; probationary status alone is not a valid ground for withholding an employee's relieving under a duly issued transfer order (paras 8-9).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

State employees transferred while on probation, and held back by a note in the transfer order barring the relieving of probationers, can rely on this order and on the Division Bench decision in Govind that it follows (paras 8-10). Note what the case was about: the employee was not resisting a transfer but asking that the employer's own transfer order be carried out, and the only obstacle was a condition the Court found had no footing in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (paras 2-3, 8-9). That differs from K.K. Gupta, where the High Court held that transfer is an incident of service and spouse-posting guidelines confer no enforceable right. The ruling turns on probation as the sole ground (para 9).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Govind v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1180/2026, decided on 01.10.2026
Followed Discussed at ¶ 5, 8, 10
A Division Bench decision placed by the petitioner (para 5). The Court held the controversy covered by it, recording that it held that, absent any statutory prohibition against transferring an employee during probation, the authorities cannot impose a condition outside the applicable rules, and observed that the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 do not prohibit transferring a probationer (para 8); the writ petition was allowed in view of it (para 10).
Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15536/2026, decided on 07.08.2026
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 7, 8
A co-ordinate Bench decision on which the State relied in seeking dismissal of the writ petition (para 7). The Court said it had examined the judgments relied upon by the parties and held the matter covered by Govind; it did not otherwise discuss this decision (para 8).