Govt Employees filed petition against transfer orders citing Family Responsibilities, Now Court has ruled in their favor
Recently, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled in favor of government employees providing protection from transfers. The court has done this keeping in view their family responsibilities. The court has said that the department can issue transfer orders in future based on administrative exigencies.
In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review when it comes to transfer orders of government employees. The Court stated that since transfer is an inherent part of a transferable government job, employees do not have a fundamental right to choose their place of service.
Justice Sameer Jain, presiding over the case, highlighted that the decision regarding employee postings solely rests with the appropriate authority or department responsible for enhancing output and service efficiency. The Court maintained that it can only interfere with transfer orders under specific circumstances, such as if the orders are tainted by malice or if they violate any statutes. It further explained that without limitations on the court’s writ jurisdiction, the smooth functioning of the government would be severely impacted if all employees were allowed to contest their postings.
The Court’s rationale for restricting interference with transfer orders is based on the potential chaos that would ensue if employees, who prefer a specific location, refuse to accept or challenge their assigned postings due to administrative exigencies.
The case before the Court involved petitions filed by government employees who had received interim protection orders against their transfers. The petitioners sought to make these interim orders permanent, arguing that the protection had been in their favor for a significant period.
While acknowledging the difficulties that transfer orders can impose on employees and their families, the Court emphasized that this factor alone cannot invalidate the transfer orders. It stated that administrative exigencies take precedence over personal familial convenience.
The Court concluded that government employees, even if posted in a location of their liking, do not possess a fundamental right to continue serving in that location. It emphasized that transfer is an inherent condition of employment for transferable posts. Although transfer orders may cause personal hardships and disrupt family arrangements, they cannot be overturned solely based on these grounds. The Court maintained that administrative exigencies must prevail over individualistic priorities and familial considerations for employees in transferable jobs.
Consequently, the Court made the interim protection orders permanent but specified that in the future, the relevant government department retains the authority to transfer the petitioners based on administrative exigencies.
