Dismissed

Ramesh Chand Jatav S/O Bhoundu Ram Jatav v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.

Rajasthan HC18 May 2023CW/2259/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a transfer order. The Court held that the transfer was valid, passed without malafide, and in the administrative interest of the respondent body, finding no ground for interference under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The impugned transfer order is upheld, the writ petition is dismissed, and no costs are awarded.

Ramesh Chand Jatav S/O Bhoundu Ram Jatav Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/011337]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2259/2023

¶4

Ramesh Chand Jatav S/o Bhoundu Ram Jatav, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Gali No. 4.1/2, Chopra Farm, Dadwara, Kota Jn. Kota, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Secretary (Admn.).

¶8

The Deputy Director (Estt.) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

Chief Personnel Officer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

The Assistant Secretary (Admn.), Katpp, Rvunl, Jhalawar.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jai Lodha

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment

¶14

18/05/2023

¶15

By way of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.01.2023 whereby petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer has been transferred from CE (KaTPP), Jhalawar to CE (RGTPP) Ramgarh in the interest of Nigam by the Chief Personnel Officer of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (for short “RRVUNL).

¶16

It has been submitted by counsel for petitioner that before issuing the impugned transfer order dated 14.01.2023, petitioner was transferred earlier vide order dated 31.12.2020 from CE (KaTPP), Jhalawar to CE (RGTPP) Ramgarh and that order was assailed by the petitioner by way of SBCWP No.715/2021: Ramesh

[2023/RJJP/011337]

[CW-2259/2023]

(2 of 6)

Chand Jatav Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. In that writ petition, the Coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the operation of transfer order dated 31.12.2020 vide interim order dated 25.01.2021 and later on, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.10.2021 with liberty to petitioner to submit a representation before respondents within a period of one week and representation was directed to be considered by respondents sympathetically keeping in view the hardship mentioned by the petitioner in representation and till decision of the representation, interim order dated 25.01.2021 was continued.

¶21

Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner submitted representation before respondents which has been rejected vide order dated 13.01.2023 (Ann-9) which has been placed by petitioner along with rejoinder. He submits that thereafter petitioner has again been transferred vide impugned order dated 14.01.2023 at the same place i.e. CE (RGTPP) Ramgarh at Jaisalmer, which is at a far distant place. Counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner made certain complaints against officers in respect of some corruption and mischievous acts and therefore, the petitioner has been transferred vide impugned order malafidely and such transfer order may not be treated as in Nigam’s interest and for administrative exigencies.

¶22

Counsel for petitioner submits that the transfer of petitioner may be reconsidered and instead of Ramgarh, Jaisalmer, the petitioner may be adjusted at some nearby place wheresoever the post is lying vacant.

¶23

Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and has pointed out that the posting of petitioner at CE (KaTPP), Jhalawar

[2023/RJJP/011337]

[CW-2259/2023]

(3 of 6)

was continuing since 26.12.2012 i.e. for a period of about 10 years 3 months and 24 days, petitioner remained posted at one place only.

¶28

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondentNigam submits that petitioner in his representation did not disclose any sufficient reason for cancellation of his previous transfer order and this aspect was considered by the Authority concerned of the Nigam while passing the order dated 13.01.2023, dismissing the representation of petitioner. He also pointed out that in pursuance of impugned transfer order dated 14.01.2023, petitioner has been relieved w.e.f. 18.01.2023.

¶29

Learned Senior Counsel argued that the transfer order of petitioner has been issued in the interest of Nigam that too after rejection of his representation by way of a speaking and reasoned order dated 13.01.2023, hence, the challenge to the impugned transfer order of petitioner in the second round of litigation is unwarranted and this Court may not interfere with the impugned transfer order as same has been passed in the interest of Nigam and for administrative reasons.

¶30

A perusal of the order dated 13.01.2023 (Ann-9) whereby the representation of petitioner has been rejected, indicates that representation of petitioner was considered by respondents on merits and it has been observed in the order, which reads as under:

¶31

“It is further noted that in the representation so submitted by Sh. Ramesh Chand, he has made complaints and levelled certain allegations but he has neither represented against his transfer nor explained his problems on transfer.”

[2023/RJJP/011337]

[CW-2259/2023]

(4 of 6)

It may be noticed that earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing No.715/2021, assailing his previous transfer order dated 31.12.2020 was withdrawn by petitioner with liberty to file representation and in such circumstances, this Court vide order dated 23.10.2021 allowed the petitioner to submit representation detailing out the hardship faced by the petitioner from the transfer order. Counsel for petitioner alleged to submit the representation before respondents but such representation filed by petitioner has not been placed on record before this Court. Counsel for petitioner is not in a position to figure out the hardship to the petitioner indicated by him in the representation. In addition, it has also been noticed that petitioner did not place the rejection order of representation dated 13.01.2023 with the main writ petition but same has been enclosed with the rejoinder. In the order dated 13.01.2023, it has specifically been mentioned that petitioner has not assigned reasons or hardship to cancel his transfer order as extracted hereinabove. The order dated 13.01.2023 itself is a speaking and reasoned order. The order dated 23.10.2021 passed by this Court, while disposing of the earlier writ petition of petitioner, has been complied with.

¶36

In addition to above, taking into consideration the tenure of petitioner being posted at CE (KaTPP), Jhalawar as pointed out by respondents, which has not been disputed by petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the transfer order. As far as alternative prayer of adjusting the petitioner at nearby place is concerned, no such prayer was made by the petitioner in the representation despite having option and opportunity, therefore,

[2023/RJJP/011337]

[CW-2259/2023]

(5 of 6)

now after withdrawal of the previous writ petition by petitioner, no such alternative prayer can be appreciated.

¶41

In such circumstances, petitioner remained failed to show that the impugned transfer order suffers from any malafide or has been passed in violation to the statutory rules or transfer policy of the State Government. Rather petitioner himself has not come out with correct and complete facts and trying to hide the material facts from this Court in the writ petition.

¶42

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit [(2020)3 SCC 404] , has held that interference with transfer order is in excess of jurisdiction and improper exercise of judicial power, when there is no mala fide nor any breach of law in passing the transfer order.

¶43

In case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2009) 15 SCC 178] , the Apex Court, in respect of challenge to the transfer order, has held as under:

¶44

“8. A Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one lace or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desire (see State of UP Vs. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402 , SCC P.406, Para 7)”

¶45

For reasons discussed herein above, the impugned transfer order cannot be said to be mala fide or illegal and the same has been passed in administrative exigencies in the interest of Nigam

[2023/RJJP/011337]

[CW-2259/2023]

(6 of 6)

by the competent authority, as such warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no force in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

¶50

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶51

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶52

NITIN /83

Ramesh Chand Jatav S/O Bhoundu Ram Jatav v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Jatav S/O Bhoundu Ram Jatav v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parsadi Ram Saini S/O Lohre Ram Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Satyendra Singh Norawat S/O Gulab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Sunil Agarwal S/O Shri Badri Prasad Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Ladley Miya S/O Mohammad Aman Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Anuj Kumar Sharma S/O Sanwar Mal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Lal Jat S/O Shri Chhaju Ram Jat Vs the State of Rajasthan