Recurring Writ Petitions Indicate Systemic Deficiency: Rajasthan High Court Issues Directions To Frame State Transfer Policy

Accordingly, the High Court issued directions for a structured transfer grievance mechanism, including departmental committees, time-bound consideration of representations, and the formulation of a comprehensive State transfer policy.

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging transfer orders issued by different Government Departments, Boards, Nigams, Discoms, local authorities, financial institutions, non-governmental educational institutions and other establishments.

A Bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed: “This Court is further of the considered view that the recurring nature of the present litigation cannot be ignored. While exercising the roster in service matters, this Court has repeatedly noticed a substantial number of writ petitions challenging transfer orders issued by different Departments, Boards, Nigams, Discoms, local authorities and other establishments. The repetitive invocation of the writ jurisdiction in matters which, ordinarily, ought to be capable of resolution within the administrative hierarchy, is indicative of a systemic deficiency requiring remedial attention.”

Senior Advocate R.P. Singh appeared for the petitioners. Advocate General Rajendra Prasad appeared for the respondents. Advocate Ashish Saxena assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.

Background

The batch concerned challenges to transfer orders alleged to have been issued without considering individual circumstances, personal grievances, applicable policies and departmental parameters. The lead petition sought quashing of a transfer order and continuation of the petitioner on the post of Senior Veterinary Officer.

The petitioners argued that the transfers were cryptic, arbitrary, mala fide in some cases, and issued without considering spouse grounds, medical conditions, disability, employees nearing retirement, sanctioned posts, repeated transfers, applicable transfer guidelines, alleged political interference, and statutory provisions such as Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and Section 89(8)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

The State opposed the petitions, contending that transfer is an ordinary incident of service, that an employee has no vested right to remain at a particular station, and that judicial review in transfer matters is limited to cases involving mala fides, lack of jurisdiction, violation of mandatory statutory provisions or patent arbitrariness.

Court’s Observations

The Court reiterated that an employee holding a transferable post has no indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular station, and that the employer must retain reasonable latitude in deployment of staff.

The Court observed: “At the outset, this Court is conscious of the settled position that transfer is an incident of service and that an employee holding a transferable post does not possess an indefeasible or vested right to remain posted at a particular place or station.”

The Court clarified that restraint in transfer matters does not mean abdication of judicial review, because the legality of the manner in which transfer power is exercised remains open to scrutiny.

The Court observed: “The distinction, therefore, is between the power to transfer and the manner of exercise of that power. The existence of the power is ordinarily not in dispute. What is amenable to judicial scrutiny is the legality of its exercise.”

It further held: “Conversely, if the order is demonstrably contrary to a mandatory statutory provision, issued by an incompetent authority, actuated by mala fides, founded upon extraneous considerations, or passed in patent disregard of relevant and compelling circumstances in a manner which renders the decision arbitrary, the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court cannot be rendered otiose.”

The Court held that spouse grounds, medical circumstances, disability, proximity to retirement, family hardship and similar circumstances may require sympathetic and reasoned consideration by the competent authority, but do not by themselves create a legally enforceable right to a particular posting.

The Court observed: “They cannot, in the absence of a statutory mandate or binding policy, be converted into an absolute right to a particular posting.”

On the balance required, the Court added: “The appropriate balance, therefore, lies not in judicially prescribing the place at which each employee should be posted, but in ensuring that the competent authority considers the relevant circumstances in a fair, transparent and structured manner.”

The Court noted submissions regarding the functioning of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, including vacancies and non-availability or non-sitting of requisite members, resulting in delay in adjudication.

The Court observed: “The consequence is that employees aggrieved by transfer orders, particularly where such orders operate immediately and are accompanied by relieving directions, are confronted with a practical dilemma: the statutory forum may not provide an expeditious remedy commensurate with the urgency of the grievance, while approaching the writ Court results in a recurring burden upon the constitutional docket.”

It added: “The existence of an alternative forum does not extinguish the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; equally, the writ jurisdiction cannot be transformed into a routine appellate forum for every transfer dispute.”

The Court held that the matter did not call for an inflexible judicial code governing every transfer, but required a structured administrative mechanism.

The Court observed: “The Court, finds that the present controversy does not warrant formulation of an inflexible judicial code governing every transfer in the State; what is required is a structured administrative mechanism which preserves the employer's legitimate prerogative while ensuring transparency, consistency, consideration of relevant circumstances and availability of a meaningful remedy.”

The Court further said: “The power of transfer must, therefore, be exercised not merely as an instrument of administrative control, but with due regard to the human element underlying public administration.”

Conclusion

The High Court disposed of the entire batch of writ petitions with directions.

It permitted each petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation before the competent authority within fifteen days. The authority or committee, the Court directed, must decide the representation within an upper limit of fifteen days, after considering relevant factors and passing a brief but intelligible reasoned order.

As a transitional arrangement, the impugned transfer orders concerning the petitioners were kept in abeyance till disposal of their representations or for thirty days from the judgment, whichever was earlier, subject to the caveat that where a petitioner had already joined at the transferred place, the posting would remain subject to the outcome of the representation.

The Court further directed that where a representation was filed within the stipulated period, the interim protection would continue until it was considered and an appropriate order was passed.

The highest authority of each concerned Department, Board, Nigam, Discom, financial institution, non-governmental educational institution or other establishment was directed to constitute a Departmental Transfer Grievance Committee within seven working days.

The Court also proposed a State-Level Committee comprising former Judge Justice Alok Sharma, the Advocate General for Rajasthan and the Chief Secretary to formulate and place before the competent Government a comprehensive transfer policy within two months.

The State Government was directed to take immediate steps for appointment or nomination of a retired High Court judge as supervisory head, chairman or supervisory authority of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, subject to the statutory framework, and to take consequential steps including filling vacancies and ensuring availability of requisite judicial members.

For disciplinary proceedings initiated solely due to non-joining pursuant to transfer orders, the competent disciplinary authority was directed to consider the employee’s representation and the decision rendered on it before proceeding further.

Cause Title: Dr Mahesh Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocate R.P. Singh, Advocate Sandeep Kalwaniya, Amicus Curiae Ashish Saxena and other counsel

Respondents: Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, Additional Advocate General Mahi Yadav, Additional Advocate General S.S. Naruka, Additional Advocate General Bhuwnesh Sharma and other counsel

Click here to read/download Judgment