Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sanjay S/O Shri Prameshwar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:46325) on 17 November, 2025
Author: Ashok Kumar Jain
Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:46325]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17323/2025
Sanjay S/o Shri Prameshwar Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village
And Post Bidodi Badi Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School
Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Rajpura Block
Laxmangarh District Sikar.
4. Manju Kumari, Principal At Govt. Senior Secondary School,
Rajpura Block Laxmangarh District Sikar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG with
Mr. Vishal Kumar and
Mr. Parth Sharma
Mr. Vijay Poonia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Judgment
17/11/2025
1. Instant writ petition is preferred by writ petitioner-Sanjay S/o
Shri Prameshwar Lal with following prayer:-
(i) By an appropriate writ, order and direction, the
impugned order dated 22.09.2025 and relieving order
dated 24.09.2025 (Annex. 1 & 2) may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order and direction, the
respondents be directed to continue the petitioner on
the post of Principal in Govt. Senior Secondary School,
Rajpura Laxmangarh District Sikar.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by petitioner aggrieved from his
transfer by order dated 22.09.2025 from Govt. Senior Secondary
School, Rajpura, Laxmangarh (Sikar) to Government Senior
Secondary School, Dauba, Jaisalmer. The petitioner has
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:46325] (2 of 10) [CW-17323/2025]
challenged the transfer order dated 22.09.2025 and relieving
order dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure-I and Annexure-II).
3. During course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner
has also apprised that an appeal No. 4650/2025 is also filed before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur to challenge the transfer but today the counsel for the petitioner has apprised the Court that appeal No. 4650/2025 is withdrawn and same is not pending before the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring order dated 25.05.2022 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 619/2022 (Dr. Naresh Kumar Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan), order dated 14.12.2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20870/2019 (Ashok Kumar Saxena Vs. Director, Secondary Education), Order dated 03.03.2020 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 307/2020 (Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Vs. Ashok Kumar Saxena and Anr.), order dated 19.03.2025 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 252/2025 (Nitin Tolambiya Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) and order dated 27.02.2025 in D.B. Special Appl. Writ No. 332/2025 (Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) submitted that wife of present petitioner is a Government employee and presently she is working as a Police Constable in District Sikar in the Rajasthan Police. He also submitted that the transfer of present petitioner was effected from Sikar to Jaisalmer, which is around 500 Kms from Sikar. He also submitted that the respondents have accommodated several persons after (Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM) (Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:46325] (3 of 10) [CW-17323/2025] intervention by the Tribunal and by this Hon'ble Court and he specifically referred orders passed by the respondent in respect of Jai Parkash, Manju Payal and Sunita Meena. He also submitted that this Hon'ble Court has also considered an identical issue in case of Sarita Chouhan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16903/2025 on 04.11.2025), therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be transferred and posted at same place where wife of present petitioner is serving. He further referred and placed reliance upon judgment in case of S.K. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2022 SC 1494 and submitted that it is duty of the respondents to balance the human needs and also the administrative exigencies.
5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondent(s) and relying upon reply filed by him, submitted that invocation of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible in transfer matters as petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Tribunal. He also submitted that the Department is not under an obligation to accommodate petitioner as wife is not working in same department. He also submitted that the petitioner is transferred from Sikar to Jaisalmer only due to administrative exigencies and he has no right to dictate to the respondent(s) to be posted at a particular place. He further referred order dated 03.10.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15140/2025 (Shri Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) and also circular of Education Department dated 25.09.2025.
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM) (Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:46325] (4 of 10) [CW-17323/2025]
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by both the counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has apprised this Court that an appeal is filed before the Services Tribunal and same is withdrawn, therefore the matter is before this Court. A Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable even if there is an alternative or efficacious remedy, though the Courts normally exercise discretion and do not entertain such petition routinely. The availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of policy and discretion and same is not an absolute bar or a legal limitation to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified between "maintainability" and "entertainability". A Writ Petition can be maintainable but same may not be entertained by the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances.
8. It is also settled proposition of law that where a prayer is made for enforcement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution and violation of the principles of natural justice is alleged then a writ petition is maintainable and can be entertained. Similarly, where there is a pure legal question or urgency or exceptional hardship then a writ petition is entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In case of M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh (2021) SCC Online SC 334, Hon'ble (Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM) (Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:46325] (5 of 10) [CW-17323/2025] Supreme Court has considered principle of law as mentioned in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks 1998 (8) SCC 1 and Harbans Lal Sahania Vs. India Oil Corporation Limited (2000) 2 SCC 107. A similar issue was considered in case of Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Excise Taxation Officer (2023) SCC Online SC 95. After considering the legal position as mentioned herein-above the contention of learned AAG that the writ petition should be rejected at the very threshold as it is not maintainable, is not tenable.
10. The counsel for the petitioner has apprised the Court that the process of hearing in the Services Tribunal is so cumbersome that it is impossible for anyone to list their case as hearing Benches are not available on daily basis. This Court has also taken note of the fact that working of Services Tribunals is just an eye- wash and even a single Bench is not available on everyday. Therefore, this Court has authority to entertain a writ to question a transfer order.
11. Now, comes the merits of the case, learned AAG has contended that if present petitioner and his wife are in same services then they may consider to accommodate but the spouse of present petitioner is in other services, hence, the department cannot accommodate the petitioner. As regards to incident of transfer is concerned one can very easily point out that transfer is in exclusive domain of Administrative Department and no one can demand transfer at a particular place of his own choice. Similarly, noone can dictate to be transferred on his or her desires.
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM) (Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:46325] (6 of 10) [CW-17323/2025]
12. The Courts have consistently maintained a stance in limited intervention in transfer matters particularly in light of judgment in case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1991) Suppli. SCC (2) 659. In case of Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta (1992) 1 SCC 306 and further referred in case of S.K. Nausad Rahaman and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different.
13. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T), Government of India has issued various Office Memoranda (O.Ms) and guidelines advising ministries and department to accommodate, as far as practicable, requests for posting of spouses at the same station. Several Government Department have adopted these guidelines or formulated their own policies. Relevant, OM of DoP&T is reproduced as under:-
No.DOPT-1669289899529 Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances &Pensions Department of Personnel and Training ESTT.(Estt. A-IV) Dated 24 November, 2022 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Framing of transfer policy by all cadres and Posting of husband and wife at the same station A. Rotational Transfer Policy
1. Draft RTP for the CSS laying down guidelines on tenures, postings on promotion, posting on return from leave/deputation, outstation postings, mutual transfers etc. was placed on the website of DOP&T (Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM) (Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:46325] (7 of 10) [CW-17323/2025] with the aim to harmonise objectives of institutional memory, avoid development of vested interests, and provide exposure to the employees of working in different organisations, inter alia ensuring overall growth of an officer. All the Ministries/Departments were requested to (i) prescribe Minimum Tenure; (ii) set up a mechanism akin to Civil Services Board for recommending transfer; and (iii) place in public domain the transfer policy.
Salient features of the RTP is at annexure to the OM No. 11013/10/2013-Estt.(A) dated 02 July, 2015.
2. In addition to the Salient features of the RTP, instructions of Central Vigilance Commission reiterate that sensitive posts should be identified and staff working in these posts strictly rotated after every two/three years to avoid developing vested interests.
[O.M. No. 11013/10/2013-Estt. (A) dated 02.07.2025] B. Posting of husband and wife at the same station
1. In view of the utmost importance attached to the enhancement of women's status in all walks of life and to enable them to lead a normal family life as also to ensure the education and welfare of the children, guidelines were issued by DOP&T in O.M No. 28034/7/86-Estt.(A) dated 3.4.86 and No.28034/2/97 Estt.(A) dated 12.6.97 for posting of husband and wife who are in Government service, at the same station. Department had on 23.8.2004 issued instructions to all Mins./Deptts. To follow the above guidelines in letter and spirit.
2. In the context of the need to make concerted efforts to increase representation of women in Central Government jobs, these guidelines were reviewed to see whether the instructions could be made mandatory, and it was decided that when both spouses are in same Central Service or working in same Deptt. and if posts are available, they may mandatorily be posted at the same station. The consolidated guidelines are as follows:-
(i) Where the spouses belong to the same All India Service or two of the All India Services, namely lAS, IPS and Indian Forest Service (Group 'A');
The spouse may be transferred to the same cadre by providing for a cadre transfer of one spouse to the Cadre of the other spouse, on the request of the member of service subject to the member of service not being posted under this process to his/her home cadre. Postings within the Cadre will, of course, fall within the purview of the State Govt.
(ii) Where one spouse belongs to one of the All India Services and the other spouse belongs' to one of the Central Services:-
The cadre controlling authority of the Central Service may post the officer to the station or if there is no post in that station, to the State where the other spouse belonging to the All India service is posted.
(iii) Where the spouses belong to the same Central Service:-
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM) (Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:46325] (8 of 10) [CW-17323/2025] The Cadre controlling authority may post the spouses to the same station.
(iv) Where the spouse belongs to one Central Service and the other spouse belongs to another Central Service:-
The spouse with the longer service at a station may apply to his/her appropriate cadre controlling authority and the said authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the nearest station where the post exists. In case that authority, after consideration of the request, is not in a position to accede to the request, on the basis of non-availability of vacant post, the spouse with lesser service may apply to the appropriate cadre authority accordingly, and that authority will consider such requests for posting the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the nearest station where the post exists.
(v) Where one spouse belongs to an All India Service and the other spouse belongs to a Public Sector Undertaking:-
The spouse employed under the Public Sector Undertaking may apply to the competent authority and said authority may post the said officer to the station, or if there is no post under the PSU in that station, to the State where the other spouse is posted.
(vi) Where one spouse belongs to a Central Service and the other spouse belongs to a PSU:-
The spouse employed under the PSU 'may apply to the competent authority and the said authority may post the officer to the station or if there is no post under the PSU in that station, to the station nearest to the station where the other spouse is posted. If, however, the request cannot be granted because the PSU has no post in the said station, then the spouse belonging to the Central Service may apply to the appropriate cadre controlling authority and the said authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station, to the station nearest to the station where the spouse employed under PSU is posted.
(vii) Where one spouse is employed under the Central Govt.
and the other spouse is employed under the state Govt.:-
The spouse employed under the Central Govt. may apply to the competent authority and the competent authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the State where the other spouse is posted.
(viii) "The husband & wife, if working in the same Department and if the required level of post is available, should invariably be posted together in order to enable them to lead a normal family life and look after the welfare of their children especially till the children attain 18 years of age. This will not apply on appointment under the central Staffing Scheme. Where only wife is a Govt. servant, the (Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM) (Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:46325] (9 of 10) [CW-17323/2025] above concessions would be applicable to the Govt.
servant.
3. Complaints are sometimes received that even if posts are available in the station of posting of the spouse, the administrative authorities do not accommodate the employees citing administrative reasons. In all such cases, the cadre controlling authority should strive to post the employee at the station of the spouse and in case of inability to do so, specific reasons, therefore, may be communicated to the employee.
4. Although, normal channels of representations/complaints redressal mechanism exist in the Min./Depts., added safeguards to prevent noncompliance may be provided by ensuring that the complaints against nonadherence to the instructions are be decided by the authorities at least one level above the authorities which took the original decision when they are below the level of secretary to the Govt. of India/Head of the PSU concerned and all such representations are considered and disposed off in time bound manner.
[O.M. No. 28034/2009-Estt. (A) dated 30.09.2009]
14. Herein this case the petitioner is transferred from Sikar to Jaisalmer and distance may be approximately 400 Kms whereas the petition indicate that the wife of present petitioner is a Constable in Rajasthan Police and presently posted in Distt. Sikar. The contention of learned AAG that if the husband and wife are posted in same department then only they can accommodate else not, is not acceptable and same is discriminatory. The Government has to balance human needs and the administrative exigencies. The Government has to be a model employer by considering the needs of the human resource.
15. After considering the submission and the ground as referred hereinabove, the matter requires intervention by this Court, therefore, it is appropriate to pass an order identical with the order passed on 04.11.2025 in case of Sarita Chouhan Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra).
(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM) (Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:46325] (10 of 10) [CW-17323/2025]
16. Considering the grievances raised herein, the petitioner is given a liberty to file a representation to the respondent(s) within a period of 30 days raising all the grounds and the respondent- Authority is directed to decide the representation in light of observation made by this Court within a period of 30 day from date of receipt of representation. In case, the respondent- Authority is of the view that the representation of petitioner requires to be dismissed then they are under an obligation to decide the representation with a reasoned and speaking order. After passing the order, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the decision to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail in his representation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he has a liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition.
17. The order dated 22.09.2025 and relieving order dated 24.09.2025 qua the present petitioner shall remain stayed till disposal of the representation by the respondent(s) and the petitioner be permitted to continue at same post, where he was working prior to issuance of order dated 22.09.2025.
18. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /563-S (Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 10:51:10 AM) (Downloaded on 29/11/2025 at 12:19:58 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)