Transfer Orders Open to Challenge Only on Four Narrow Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Disposes of Batch Petitions

Government employees challenged their transfer orders in a batch of writ petitions, which Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand decided together by a common order with the consent of counsel, as common questions of law and fact arose (para 1). According to the cause title, the lead petitioner is a Senior Ayurved Compounder, and the connected petitioners include a Level-2 teacher in Jhunjhunu district and employees whose petitions were directed against the Revenue Department and the Animal Husbandry Department. The order records only that the transfers were challenged ‘on various grounds’ (para 2) and does not set out each petitioner’s grievance. The Court heard counsel and perused the record (para 3).

The Court started from the settled position that transfer is an incidence of service: no employee has a vested right to a place of choice, and the employer decides postings in view of administrative exigencies, public interest and smooth administration (para 4). No one can claim immunity from transfer, and a long stay at one place is not a matter of right (para 5). Relying on Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, it said courts and tribunals should not normally interfere with transfer orders (para 6). It observed that a flood of transfer challenges before it and the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal was bringing the administrative machinery to a standstill (para 7). Transfers are ordinarily challenged first before the Tribunal (para 8), and the extraordinary, discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a second appeal to examine whether a transfer is convenient (paras 9-10). Personal inconvenience, hardship and long stay are for the authorities to consider, not the courts (para 12). None of the four grounds was made out (para 13), but, to ensure that genuine grievances are not left unaddressed, the petitioners were given liberty to represent (para 14).