Jodhpur: Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the state govt’s policy favouring the posting of govt-employed spouses at the same place does not give employees an enforceable right to seek transfer to a location of their choice.Justice Kuldeep Mathur delivered the ruling Friday while dismissing seven connected writ petitions, including those filed by Sunil Kumar and others, who sought postings at or near their spouses’ places of employment.The petitioners had cited the practical difficulties and family hardships caused by postings in different locations and sought directions to accommodate them at their spouses’ places of posting or nearby.The single-judge bench acknowledged that co-locating spouses at the same place, district or headquarters, wherever feasible, helps them manage family responsibilities and supports the upbringing and welfare of children. It said the policy must be given due consideration while deciding transfer and posting requests.However, the court clarified that the policy does not confer an absolute right to a preferred posting. Authorities must balance employees’ family circumstances with administrative requirements, vacancy availability, applicable service rules and the efficient functioning of govt departments.The bench also examined a May 18, 2020, circular issued by the state govt’s department of administrative reforms. The circular provides for preference in allotting posting locations at the time of initial appointment, subject to specified conditions and the availability of vacancies, including in cases involving spouses.The court held that the circular primarily applies to candidates joining govt service through the prescribed recruitment process and cannot be extended to employees already in service to create an automatic right to transfer on grounds of equality.It cannot be extended, merely on the ground of equality, to create an absolute right to transfer for employees already serving in govt departments.Observing that the growing participation of women in public service makes it important to account for employees’ family circumstances, the court said the policy must operate within the applicable service framework and administrative requirements.While dismissing all seven petitions, the court allowed the petitioners to submit fresh representations to their respective departments within two weeks. The authorities were directed to consider them fairly and decide in accordance with law.
