Mass Transfers Mid-Academic Year Defeat Good Governance: Rajasthan High Court Stays Teacher’s Transfer, Slams Tribunal for Arbitrary Dismissal

“Transfer is Not a Tool of Administrative Whim — Educational Continuity Must Not Be Sacrificed”, Rajasthan High Court, in a reportable judgment delivered by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, came down heavily on the State’s mass transfer of over 4,500 school principals in the middle of the academic session, calling it an action contrary to good governance and administrative prudence. The Court stayed the transfer of petitioner Hargovind Meena, a government school principal, observing that such a move not only caused undue hardship to the teacher but also disrupted the educational ecosystem, adversely impacting students’ academic continuity.

The Court also set aside the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 04.11.2025, which had denied interim relief to the petitioner while relying solely on the precedent of Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, even though it had granted interim relief in several similar matters on the same dates.

“The Tribunal’s Approach Is Not Only Arbitrary but Reflects Judicial Impropriety”: High Court Disapproves ‘Pick-and-Choose’ Justice

Taking serious exception to the inconsistent and discriminatory approach adopted by the Tribunal, Justice Jain observed:

“A dishonest and mala fide approach adopted by the Tribunal is disapproved by this Court, as in the instant case the Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the case...while granting stay in other similar matters on identical facts.”

The High Court highlighted how the same Tribunal, on the same day (04.11.2025), granted stay in the case of Mohammad Shakir while denying it to Hargovind Meena, despite both officers being transferred within less than five months. The Court emphasized that selective application of law undermines judicial integrity:

“It is expected from the Chairman and Member(s) of the Tribunal to maintain impartial conduct, adhere to precedents, and avoid any bias or deviation.”

“Mid-Year Transfers Disrupt the Educational Fabric”: Court Slams Mass Transfers of 4,527 School Principals

The petitioner had been posted to Government Senior Secondary School, Garboliya, Jhalawar in April 2025 and was again transferred in September 2025—within just five months—to Government Senior Secondary School, Virampura, Bharatpur, approximately 500 km away. The transfer was part of a mass reshuffling of 4,527 principals by the education department.

The Court held this action to be completely at odds with the school calendar and the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, stating:

“The mass school transfers have not only disturbed the entire educational ecosystem, but it is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the educational system is being governed by the whims and fancies of administrators, and not in accordance with the needs and requirements of the students.”

Referring to the Shivira Calendar, which governs academic scheduling in Rajasthan, the Court observed: “It is always expected that if a teacher has to be transferred, such transfer should take place during breaks, particularly during summer vacation… The transfer order dated 22.09.2025 (mid of the academic year) is itself contrary to the principles of good governance.”

“Transfer is an Incident of Service, But Cannot Be a Tool for Arbitrariness”

While reaffirming the principle that transfer is a prerogative of the employer and an incident of service, the Court made it clear that this power is not absolute and must pass the tests of rationality, fairness, and administrative propriety. Citing constitutional values and directives of good governance, the Court observed: “The action reflects arbitrariness and undue hardship... Such mass transfers during the academic session are not only administratively imprudent but constitutionally suspect when they compromise the future of students.”

Justice Jain noted that in the absence of a comprehensive transfer policy, the existing mechanism becomes vulnerable to political interference and favoritism, especially following regime changes: “Normally, a government servant, particularly a teacher, suffers not on account of political affiliation, but due to change of Government or pressure of local politicians.”

“NEP 2020 Cannot Be Implemented Without Administrative Discipline”: Court Warns State on Its Commitment

The judgment also invoked the National Education Policy, 2020, observing that administrative decisions must align with NEP’s objectives of quality and continuity in education. The Court said:

“NEP 2020 can be implemented only with collaborative efforts of the State Governments… The educational system cannot flourish in an environment of uncertainty, where teaching staff are shuffled mid-session.”

The Court lamented that Rajasthan has adopted only a phase-wise rollout of NEP and continues to face rural teacher shortages, which are exacerbated by such mass transfers.

Judgment and Directions: Interim Relief Granted, Tribunal Reprimanded

Allowing the writ petition in part, the Court:

• Set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 04.11.2025.

• Stayed the petitioner’s transfer order dated 22.09.2025 and the consequential relieving order.

• Directed the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal to decide Appeal No. 4387/2025 on merits within two months.

• Ordered the Department of Personnel and the Tribunal Chairman to ensure proper training and adherence to judicial norms in future cases.

• Directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Department of Personnel and Chairman of the Tribunal for compliance.

The Court concluded with a stern reminder: “The Service Tribunal, which is the primary forum for redressal of grievances of a government servant, cannot make distinctions between two cases having identical and similar facts. The High Court cannot remain a silent spectator.”

Date of Decision: 24.11.2025