Norti Bairwa D/O Shivji Ram Bairwa, W/O Shri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2025)

Norti Bairwa D/O Shivji Ram Bairwa, W/O Shri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose appeal (Appeal No. 1541/2025) was disposed of on her advocate's concession in return for permission to submit a representation - later rejected vide order dated 19.03.2025 - could nevertheless further challenge the Tribunal's disposal order and the original transfer order dated 15.01.2025 by invoking writ jurisdiction. +1 more

Court's answer

Because the petitioner's appeal was disposed of on the concession of her advocate to submit a representation, the Tribunal's disposal order and the original transfer order dated 15.01.2025 are not amenable to further challenge by the petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

The transfer order has been passed in administrative exigency and the petitioner has been posted within district Tonk itself, reinforcing the view that the matter does not warrant writ-court intervention.

Key takeaways

There is no good reason to interfere with the transfer order on the grounds challenged; the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6821/2025 (HC Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench; Sudesh Bansal, J.; order dated 07/05/2025): Petitioner, a Live Stock Assistant, challenged under Article 226 her transfer order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan, moving her within district Tonk (from Sub-Centre, Pandraheda, Todaraisingh Tonk to Sub Centre Roopwas, Tonk) and posting Respondent No. 3 (Kishanlal Bairwa, Zila Parishad Tonk) in her place. Her appeal (Appeal No. 1541/2025) before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal had been disposed of vide order dated 27.02.2025 on counsel's concession permitting submission of a representation; the representation was rejected vide order dated 19.03.2025 on grounds that the transfer was within district Tonk and made in administrative exigency. Holding that, having accepted the concession-based disposal, neither the Tribunal's order nor the original transfer order is amenable to further writ challenge, and relying on Union of India v. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit (2020) 3 SCC 404 (interference with transfer orders absent mala fides or breach of law is improper exercise of judicial power), the Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits; stay and pending applications were disposed of.

[2025:RJ-JP:19203]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6821/2025

Norti Bairwa D/o Shivji Ram Bairwa, W/o Shri Pankaj Sisodiya, R/o Bairwa Mohalla, Rahlana, Dudu, District Jaipur

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur

Director, Directorate Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan Jaipur 3. Kishanlal Bairwa, Member, Ward No. 2, Zila Parishad Tonk

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

07/05/2025

By means of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made by the petitioner to the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 passed by Respondent no.2-Rajasthan Government, Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner, who was posted as Live Stock Assistant, was transferred from Sub-Centre, Pandraheda, Todaraisingh Tonk to Panchi Parli, Tonk to Sub Centre Roopwas, Tonk and Respondent No. 3 was posted in his place.

It appears that the petitioner questioned her transfer order, alleging family inconvenience, against which she preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 1541/2025 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”). Learned Tribunal, on the concession of counsel for the petitioner (appellant in appeal),

[2025:RJ-JP:19203]

[CW-6821/2025]

(2 of 2)

permitted the petitioner to submit a representation and accordingly, the appeal was disposed of vide order dated 27.02.2025.

It appears that petitioner submitted a representation and in pursuance thereof, it has been considered on merits by the respondents and same has been rejected vide order dated 19.03.2025 stating inter alia that petitioner has been transferred within district Tonk and her transfer order has been passed in administrative exigency.

This Court is of considered opinion that the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of on the concession of her advocate to submit a representation, hence the order of Tribunal so also the original transfer order dated 15.01.2025 is not amenable to be further challenged by the petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction, moreover when the transfer order has been observed to be passed in administrative exigency and petitioner has been posted within district Tonk itself.

In case of Union of India Vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit [(2020) 3 SCC 404] , the Apex Court 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.

In such view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no good reason to interfere with the transfer order on grounds challenged and impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

As a result, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

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

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

TN/37