Sheer Large Number Indicates That Orders Were Passed In Great Haste: Rajasthan HC Directs Reassessment Of Transfer Of Over 1100 Assistant Account Officers
In the batch of matters before the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Assistant Account Officers (Grade-I & II) had assailed their respective transfer orders.

The Rajasthan High Court ordered the reassessment of the transfer of 1116 Assistant Account Officers and held that the sheer large number is indicative that the transfer orders had been passed in great haste.
In the batch of matters before the Jodhpur Bench of the High Court, the petitioners/ Assistant Account Officers (Grade-I & II) had assailed their respective transfer orders passed by the Director cum Secretary, Department of Treasury & Accounts, Jaipur. As many as 1,116 Account Officers had been transferred.
The Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga held, “Endeavour of this court by directing a reassessment of the transfers is merely to provide a safeguard against seemingly arbitrary action by striking a fair and pragmatic balance between rights of the account officers and administrative exigencies".
Advocate Ankur Mathur represented the Petitioners while Addl. Advocate General Mahaveer Bishnoi represented the Respondents.
Arguments
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that this was not an administrative exigency, as portrayed, but a deliberate and arbitrary act—rather a questionable slip of the pen—colourable exercise of authority, in violation of the Circular issued by the Finance Department in 2017.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to cause (1) of the Circular which provides twofold immunity to the account officers. It is mentioned therein that ordinarily they shall not be transferred before the expiry of four-year term of their posting and in special or extraordinary circumstances, in case they are required to be transferred before the completion of a term of 4 years, owing to the administrative exigency, a consent has to be obtained from the Finance Department.
On a perusal of the Transfer Orders, the Bench observed that they had been passed after carrying out the necessary compliance of the Clause by taking consent of the Finance Department. “I am thus of the opinion that the consent required under Clause (1) may not necessarily has to be a prior consent, as long as the same is obtained either pre or post facto within a reasonable period. In the present case, concededly, a prior consent has been taken, to that extent, there is therefore no violation, as alleged”, it said.
The Court explained that in clause (1) itself it is stated that in special circumstances if the public/State interest warrants then consent can be obtained from the Finance Department before passing appropriate transfer orders. “ “The sheer large number i.e. 1,116, in the first flush is indicative that the transfer orders have been passed in great haste. There was possibly no time with the competent officials to either determine the special circumstances qua each of them or to even have the empirical data available before them qua the length of their tenure on their current postings”, the Bench added.The Court further held, “Transparency between the administrative authority and the Finance Department reinforces the rule of law by ensuring that the circular’s provisions are followed to prevent potential abuse of authority by ensuring that transfers are not carried out arbitrarily or without justification. Disclosure of special circumstances to the Finance Department acts as a check on the exercise of power, ensuring that transfers are made in good faith and in the public interest and rule of law is maintained.”
The Bench thus directed the competent authority to take a fresh call concerning all 1,116 Assistant Account Officers (Grade-I & II) and segregate them into two separate lists i.e. the ones who have completed their four years warranting their transfers and the second list of those where special circumstances exist as per Clause (1) of the Circular. “Till then the implementation of the impugned transfer orders shall be kept at abeyance in rem”, it added.
“I am conscious that administrative decisions, especially those involving large-scale transfers, require certain degree of discretion which this court is not equipped to second-guess. The separation of powers and the expertise of the administrative body has to be given due credence”, the Bench concluded.
Cause Title: Devendra Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:5548)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ankur Mathur, Divya Bapna, Manish Patel, Mukesh Rajpurohit, Aditi Sharma, Teja Ram Choudhary, Rajesh Shah
Respondents: Addl. Advocate General Mahaveer Bishnoi, Advocates Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat, Sandeep Vishnoi, Naresh Kumar