In Shilpi Bose and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors on 17 Sep 2025

Judgment

5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Dy. Secretary, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Director, Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa Vibhag, Govern- ment Of Rajasthan, Ajmer Additional Director, Ayurved Vibhag, Jaipur, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur Dr. Lalita Verma, Senior Medical Officer Ayurved Grade-II, Government Ayurved Chikitsalaya, Malpura, Tonk ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 17/09/2025 Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure-3), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexures - 1 & 2) has been dismissed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, at present the petitioner is not discharging any administrative duties. It was further submitted that the impugned order has been passed [2025:RJ-JP:37910] (2 of 5) [CW-13794/2025] during the period when there was a blanket ban or transfer, and therefore, the same is bad in law, accordingly, he prayed that the impugned orders may kindly be quashed and set aside.

3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar, and also perused the material available on record.

4. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure-3) as well as the transfer and relieving order dated

08.08.2025 (Annexures-1 & 2), it is evident that the petitioner has been transferred in view of the decision that medical practitioners, namely Ayurvedic doctors are not to be appointed on administrative posts, on the contrary, they should be given non administrative posts in Ayurvedic Hospitals for performing medical/ professional duties such as evaluation of patients, prescribing medicines etc. to serve the public at large. Accordingly, the petitioner was transferred from the office of the Additional Director, Ayurved Vibhag, Jaipur, to the Government Zila Ayurved Chikitsalaya, Udaipurvati, District Jhunjhunu, in order to meet administrative exigencies.

5. Since the aforesaid transfer relates to Medical Department, an urgent/essential service, issued in larger interest of public, in order to meet administrative exigencies, the blanket ban on transfer of regular employees will not act as an impediment on such transfer order. Therefore, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

6. It is a settled principle of law that an employee cannot claim a right to dictate terms with respect to his posting or the nature of [2025:RJ-JP:37910] (3 of 5) [CW-13794/2025] duties to be assigned to them. Further where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that employees do not have an indefeasible right to pick and choose where they get transferred.

7. In Shilpi Bose and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "3. ......The respondents have continued to be posted at their re- spective places for the last several years, they have no vested right to remain posted at one place. Since they hold transferable posts they are liable to be transferred from one place to the other. The transfer orders had been issued by the competent authority did not violate any mandatory Rule, therefore the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer orders.

4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer or- der which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred form one place to the other. ......"

8. Further, in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bhagwan and Ors.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "5. ......Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the Management, as against such orders passed in the inter- est of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. ......"

9. Further in S. K. Nausad Rahaman and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "24. First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an inci- dent of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. 1 2 3 AIR 1991 SC 532 2001 INSC 437 2022 INSC 287 [2025:RJ-JP:37910] (4 of 5) [CW-13794/2025] An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.

25. Second, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of per- sons who are employed in the service is subject to be overarching needs of the administration.

26. Third, policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same sta- tion are subject to the requirement of the administration. In this context, Justice J. S. Verma (a the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for a three-judge Bench of this Court in Bank of India V. Jagjit Singh Mehta MANU/SC/0095/192 : (1992) 1 SCC 306 held:

5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practi- cable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be dif- ferent. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invari- ably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all - India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times par- ticularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's post- ing. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administrations and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all - India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living to- gether at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be re- lieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different place. [...] No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authori- ties do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.

27. The above principle was cited with approval in Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 where the Court held that transfer is an incident of service:

7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the ap- propriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statu- tory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While or- dering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must [2025:RJ-JP:37910] (5 of 5) [CW-13794/2025] consider the same having regard to the exigencies of ad- ministration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Govern- ment employee a legally enforceable right."

10. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or was made in violation of any statutory provisions. A bare look to the impugned orders also indicates that they do not suffer from any jurisdictional error; legal infirmity or perversity, so as to warrant any interference under the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. In view of the above discussions made hereinabove and the judgments relied upon, the present writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merits.

12. The stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Seema/46 (MANEESH SHARMA),J