Shanti Lal Suthar vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Grievance of the petitioner herein arises out of an order dated 22.02.2024 (Annex. 2), vide which he has been transferred from Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh to Rajsamand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the impugned transfer order, place of posting has not been mentioned and, therefore, the same has been passed in clear violation of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Kishore Singh Bika Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 16832/2022, decided on 29.11.2022). In this context, learned counsel has relied upon and referred to Rule 173 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957.

Having perused the transfer order impugned, it is clear that the petitioner has been transferred from Chittorgarh to Rajsamand. It is the discretion of the concerned Collector to decide where the concerned official is to be deputed.

For ready reference, Rule 173 of the Rules of 1957 is reads thus:-

Upon perusal of the Rule aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the District Collector.

Transfer being matter of administrative exigency, this Court generally refrains to interfere and treads cautiously, unless it is a case of extreme hardship. Moreover, to transfer an official or not to, is sole discretion of the employer based on the administrative exigencies. Not doing or doing so is not a punishment, but an integral part of service conditions.

No grounds to interfere.

However, it is expected of the respondents not to transfer the petitioner any further from the transferred post as he has already been transferred frequently in the past. Certain continuity and consistency has to be maintained and an official should not be put to unnecessary hardship due to the arbitrariness in frequent transfers.

Disposed of accordingly.