Transfer not an instrument of punishment or favouritism: Rajasthan High Court orders State-level transfer policy committee

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a batch of over 400 writ petitions assailing transfer orders issued across State departments, boards, nigams, discoms and non-governmental educational institutions, holding that while an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station, the power of transfer is not an uncanalised or unfettered power and cannot be permitted to operate as an instrument of punishment, favouritism or personal preference.

Justice Sameer Jain framed the controversy around the distinction between the existence of the power of transfer and the legality of its exercise, holding that judicial restraint in transfer matters does not amount to abdication of judicial review where an order is shown to be without jurisdiction, contrary to a mandatory statutory provision, actuated by mala fides or vitiated by patent arbitrariness.

Before parting with the matter, the Court observed:

“Before parting, this Court considers it necessary to emphasise that good administration and good governance do not lie in either extreme, neither in permitting an employee to dictate the place of his or her posting, nor in conferring upon the administration an unrestricted power to transfer without reference to law, fairness or reason. The legitimate interests of administration and the legitimate expectations of employees must co-exist within the constitutional framework. A transfer is, at its core, an instrument of administration; it ought not to become an instrument of punishment, favouritism or personal preference. Conversely, the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot become an appellate mechanism for every employee dissatisfied with a lawful administrative decision.”

The lead matter, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14009/2026 titled Dr. Mahesh Meena v State of Rajasthan, was taken up with the consent of counsel as the lead case, the judgment being made applicable on a mutatis mutandis basis to the entire connected batch, including the petitions enumerated in the appendix. The petitioner, a Senior Veterinary Officer, had sought quashing of a transfer order dated Jul 10, 2026 and a direction to continue him at the First Class Veterinary Hospital, Sultanpura, Kota.

The Court recorded that while exercising the roster in service disputes it had been “frequently confronted with a recurring stream of writ petitions” assailing transfers, an influx it read as indicative of a larger institutional concern, particularly since the statutory alternative before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal was not functioning with the requisite efficacy owing to the non-availability and non-sitting of the requisite Members. Data drawn from the RCSAT’s Generalized Court Management System and tabulated in the judgment showed its disposal rate falling from 97.67 per cent in 2018 to 29.62 per cent in 2026, with pendency rising from 106 appeals to 2,440 over the same period.

Counsel for the petitioners, including Senior Advocate R.P. Singh, and amicus curiae Ashish Saxena, contended that the impugned orders were cryptic, mechanical and non-speaking; that “administrative exigency” was being invoked in the vaguest and most omnibus manner as a mere cloak for accommodating other employees; that there were successive transfers within short spans, transfers to stations where no sanctioned post existed or where the post was already occupied, and postings roughly 300 km away even in the case of low-paid employees; and that spouse grounds, medical conditions, disability, proximity to superannuation and prior service in difficult, tribal, border or dark areas had gone unconsidered.

It was further urged that several orders were passed in derogation of Section 89(8)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which requires consultation with the Pradhans or Pramukhs concerned, and of Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the Note to which treats transfer to a post carrying less pay than the permanent post on which a government servant holds a lien as imposition of the penalty of reduction in rank, imposable only under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.

Per contra, Advocate General Rajendra Prasad submitted that the entire premise of the petitioners proceeded upon an erroneous conflation of an “administrative transfer with an adjudicable legal right”, and that the transfer policy relied upon was at best a draft under consideration which had neither acquired the character of a statutory rule nor been finally notified so as to create enforceable rights. Reliance was placed on Shilpi Bose v State of Bihar, Union of India v S.L. Abbas, State of U.P. v Gobardhan Lal and Rajendra Singh v State of U.P., among others.

The bench held that while the mere formulation of a policy or preparation of a draft cannot by itself confer an enforceable right, once a policy is formulated and made available in a public forum for implementation it is to be abided by, relying on Bhika Ram v State of Rajasthan, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2891, where it was held that action taken in derogation of a policy, without amendment or valid justification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Haryana, Kerala, Gujarat and the Union Government have such a policy, the Court noted, whereas in Rajasthan it is yet to be formulated.

Invoking the obligation of the State as parens patriae, the Court added that the administration ought, wherever reasonably practicable, to take genuine personal and familial circumstances into account, since “a contented and secure employee is ordinarily better placed to discharge public duties with efficiency, commitment and undivided attention”.

Declining to formulate an inflexible judicial code governing every transfer in the State, the Court issued a set of transitional directions. Each petitioner was granted liberty to file a comprehensive representation before the competent authority within fifteen days, to be considered within a further fifteen days by an order disclosing, in brief but intelligible terms, the reasons for acceptance or rejection of the principal grounds urged, a cryptic or mechanical disposal expressly not constituting compliance. The impugned transfer orders were kept in abeyance till disposal of the representations or for 30 days from the date of the judgment, whichever is earlier, with the caveat that petitioners who have already joined at the transferred station shall remain there subject to the outcome of their representations.

Every respondent establishment was directed to constitute a Departmental Transfer Grievance Committee within seven working days, comprising officers sufficiently senior and independent to ensure that consideration of representations is not reduced to a mechanical exercise. A State-Level Committee comprising former High Court judge Justice Alok Sharma, the Advocate General and the Chief Secretary was directed to formulate a comprehensive transfer policy within two months, covering tenure, premature transfers, counselling and preference mechanisms, spouse and medical grounds, employees nearing superannuation, postings in difficult, remote, backward, border or dark areas, transparency and time-bound disposal of grievances — the Court clarifying that formulation of the policy remains within the executive domain.

On the Tribunal, the State Government was directed to take immediate steps, as a transitional measure and keeping in view Madras Bar Association v Union of India and L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India, for the appointment of a retired judge of the High Court as supervisory head of the RCSAT, along with filling up of existing vacancies. Where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against a petitioner solely on account of non-joining, the disciplinary authority was directed to first take into consideration the representation and the decision rendered on it.

Clarifying that nothing in the judgment confers upon any employee a vested right to remain posted at a particular station or curtails the legitimate power of the State to effect transfers in genuine administrative exigency, the Court disposed of the entire batch along with pending applications. The judgment was reserved on Aug 11, 2026 and pronounced on Aug 17, 2026.

Title: Dr. Mahesh Meena v State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14009/2026 (with connected petitions)

Counsel for petitioners: Mr. R.P. Singh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya; Mr. Dayaram Bhaskar; Mr. Ram Pratap Saini and others; Mr. Ashish Saxena (Amicus Curiae)

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG with Ms. Dhriti Laddha; Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG; Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG; Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG; Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG and others