Delving into the merits, the High Court scrutinized Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, affirming the government's broad transfer powers, subject only to restrictions on pay reductions except for inefficiency, misbehavior, or employee request.
Justice Laxman observed that judicial review is limited to cases of mala fides, statutory violations, or detriment to service conditions and public interest. Citing Supreme Court landmarks such as Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1991 Supp (2) SCC 659), Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India & Anr. (1993) 1 SCC 148, alongside Rajasthan-specific rulings like Abhimanyu Choudhary vs. Majer Ali & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1044/2022, December 19, 2022), Maan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 586/2013, July 2, 2024), and State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Prabat Singh Jaitawat (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1253/2024, December 20, 2024), the court clarified that executive instructions confer no enforceable rights.
On retirement transfers, the bench noted, "The initial concept of not transferring the employee within two years of retirement in the context of Rule 80 has paled into insignificance for the reason that the whole process of pension papers which used to be manual has now been made on-line. There is no inconvenience on such process even if the employee is transferred at the verge of retirement." Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, mandates pension paper preparation two years prior, but imposes no transfer bar, especially with digital advancements.
For special categories, the court stated, "The priorities given to the various categories of the persons under the executive instructions/transfer policy would only be considered when regular transfer orders are effected and not in the cases of special transfer orders which are solely based on the administrative exigencies/interests." These transfers, aimed at rationalizing principal deployments across institutions, were deemed special, not general, thus exempt from routine guidelines. Frequent transfers were not arbitrary, as they stemmed from promotions and equitable adjustments, not targeting individuals.
Addressing disabilities, the ruling emphasized a nuanced approach: "The cases of persons who are falling under disability category required to be considered on different footing for the reason that their rights are emanating from the statutory provisions dealing with the specially abled persons. Such employees cases are required to be considered depending upon the nature of disability, their inconvenience vis-a-vis the requirement of administrative exigencies. Both has to be balanced."
Mala fides claims were dismissed for lack of pleadings, proof, and impleadment of accused parties. Sports preferences and medium-specific transfers were advisory, non-binding. The Additional Advocate General Sajjan Singh Rathore, assisted by R.S. Bhati and Yuvraj Singh Rathore, defended the orders as equitable distributions for institutional efficiency, approved by competent authorities.
