Neelu Arya Matoria W/O Shri Ramswaroop Matoria Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:18481]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7685/2026

Neelu Arya Matoria W/o Shri Ramswaroop Matoria, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 218/4 Ganpati Nagar Railway Officers Colony, Hasanpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Secondary Education Department Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur.

¶8

The Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Jaipur.

¶9

Smt. Suman, Working As A Principal At Govt. Senior Secondary School Panchyawala (213081), Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Ojla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG Ms. Mukta Maan Mr. Ajatshatru Mina

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

¶13

Order

¶14

1.	Date of conclusion of Arguments	30.04.2026
2.	Date on which thejudgment was reserved	30.04.2026
3.	Whether the full judgment or only operative part ispronounced	Full
4.	Date ofpronouncement	14.05.2026

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being seriously aggrieved by the impugned transfer order dated 06.01.2026, passed by the respondents and the order dated

¶16

(2 of 6) [CW-7685/2026]

¶17

[2026:RJ-JP:18481]

¶18

15.04.2026 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ the learned Tribunal ’ for short), whereby, an appeal bearing No.98/2026 filed before the learned Tribunal was dismissed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was transferred vide impugned transfer order dated 06.01.2026 from ‘Government Senior Secondary School, Panchyawala, Jaipur (213081)’ to ‘PM Shri Government Senior Secondary Schoool, Manpura Machedi, Jaipur (218615)’. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner challenged the impugned transfer order before the learned Tribunal by way of an appeal bearing No.98/2026, and the learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 15.01.2026, stayed the operation of the impugned transfer order. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 filed reply to the appeal before the learned Tribunal.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that on one hand the petitioner was transferred to the said place, and on the other hand, one person, namely, Tarun Bhinda, who was already working there filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal in which he was granted stay on the transfer by order dated 09.12.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that the person previously posted at the place, where the petitioner is transferred, had taken stay, therefore, the petitioner cannot join on the said post.

¶21

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been transferred just to accommodate respondent No.4, who was working at ‘Government Senior Secondary School, Telipara (218912)’ and was earlier transferred to ‘Government Senior Secondary School, Chandwar (222131) Tonk’. However, she

[2026:RJ-JP:18481]

[CW-7685/2026]

(3 of 6)

(respondent No.4) did not join by citing certain personal reasons and managed to get herself re-transferred at Jaipur within just three months, at the place of the petitioner. On account of this, the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned transfer order from the present place to the impugned transferred place.

¶26

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents, before issuing the transfer orders, must have ensured that the place where the person is transferred is vacant or there is no order of any Court, Tribunal, etc. so that there is no hurdle for the transferred employee in joining, in compliance with the transfer order. However, as noted above, the situation is otherwise in the present case. In view thereof, learned counsel prayed that the impugned transfer order dated 06.01.2026 and the order of learned Tribunal dated 15.04.2026 be quashed and set aside.

¶27

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent No.4 strongly opposed the submissions and stated that as the petitioner has been transferred form one school to another in the Jaipur District only, therefore, there is no difficulty for her to join at the transferred place. Further, the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the impugned transfer order.

¶28

Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Manoj Sharma also strongly opposed the challenge made to the impugned transfer order. He submitted that transfer is a part of service and petitioner should join at the transferred place in compliance of the transfer order.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

[2026:RJ-JP:18481]

[CW-7685/2026]

(4 of 6)

This court noted that the Respondent No.4 was earlier transferred vide transfer order dated 22.09.2025, which was stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19271/2025 vide order dated 10.12.2025 and was granted opportunity to submit representation to the respondents therein. It is clear from the perusal of the impugned transfer order that she was transferred from Jaipur to Tonk vide order dated 22.09.2025, and was re-transferred vide impugned transfer order dated 06.01.2026, which shows that she did not join at Tonk as she got the transfer order stayed. Therefore, after the stay, on the basis of representation, she got herself transferred back to Jaipur at the place where the petitioner was posted .

¶34

This Court further noted that the respondent No.4 stated in the writ petition before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that her husband is posted at Police Station Kho Nagoriya, District Jaipur and, therefore, while following the policy of keeping husband and wife together at one place, she should not be disturbed. It appears that just to accommodate and adjust respondent No.4 at Jaipur, the impugned transfer order dated 06.01.2026 was issued, which is clearly not in any administrative exigency and public interest.

¶35

10.1 By no stretch of imagination, the impugned transfer order dated 06.01.2026 can be treated to be issued in public interest or in any administrative exigency. It is clearly just to accommodate and adjust the respondent No.4, whose husband is in Police Department, working at Jaipur. She did not join at Tonk in

¶36

(5 of 6) [CW-7685/2026]

¶37

[2026:RJ-JP:18481]

¶38

pursuance of earlier transfer order dated 22.09.2025. Though, the petitioner herein was transferred in Jaipur District only, however, she could not join at the transferred place as one person, namely Tarun Bhinda, who was already working at that place, filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal, wherein, the operation of impugned transfer order was stayed vide order dated 09.12.2025 .

¶39

10.2 On account of this, one person, namely Tarun Bhinda, is working at the place where the petitioner herein has been transferred. The appeal, as on this date, is still pending. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been transferred as on the date of passing of the impugned transfer order, since, the stay order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of Tarun Bhinda was still in operation.

¶40

In view of the above, in the absence of any administrative exigency & public interest, further noticing that the respondent No.4 was transferred and posted in Jaipur as she did not join in pursuance of earlier transfer order dated 22.09.2025, it is nothing but a clear act of adjustment and accommodation done for Respondent No.4. The respondent-State is expected to issue the transfer orders only in public interest and in administrative exigencies and not to issue orders to adjust or accommodate any person with approach and contact.

¶41

In view of the above, this Court finds that impugned transfer order dated 06.01.2026, relieving order dated 07.01.2026 are seriously illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, and the order passed by learned Tribunal dated 15.04.2026 being perverse is hereby

(6 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:18481]

[CW-7685/2026]

quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

¶46

However, the respondent-State would be at liberty to re-examine the case of both petitioner and respondent No.4, and is free to pass fresh transfer order for both the person in accordance with law, in case, need so arises.

¶47

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶49

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶50

Dushyant/

Neelu Arya Matoria W/O Shri Ramswaroop Matoria v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelu Arya Matoria W/O Shri Ramswaroop Matoria v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Keshav Chaturvedi S/O Shri Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Vs Gayatri a. Rathore

Rajni Morwani W/O Dev Dutt Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamla Shankar Mishra S/O Shri Chotu Lal Mishra Vs the State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash and Ors. Vs Shri Hari Prakash and Ors.

Pokhar Lal and Ors. Vs Shri Hari Prakash and Ors.

Hari Singh Yadav S/O Nathuram Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan