Transfer of Probationer Cannot Be Blocked: Rajasthan HC in Govind v. State of Rajasthan

In Govind v. State of Rajasthan (2026:RJ-JD:47732-DB), the Rajasthan High Court held that a condition barring the transfer of probationer employees from taking effect, by refusing to relieve them, is arbitrary and unreasonable when no statute prohibits it. A Division Bench at Jodhpur allowed a special appeal filed by a Junior Assistant on probation who had been transferred from the office of the District Collector, Balotra to the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Shergarh, but was not relieved because of Note No. 3 in the transfer order (paras 2–3, 8, 10). The Court held that the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 contain no provision prohibiting the transfer of a probationer, and that the authorities cannot insert a condition de hors the law (para 8). Following its earlier ruling in Monika v. State of Rajasthan, the Bench set aside the Single Judge's order and directed that the appellant be relieved immediately (paras 9–10).

Headnote: Transfer of Probationer

Service Law – Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 – Transfer – Probationer – Condition in transfer order that probationers and employees under suspension shall not be relieved – Arbitrariness – Condition de hors the law – Special Appeal (Writ) against order of Single Judge.

Held: (i) The Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 contain no provision that prohibits the transfer of a probationer from one place to another (paras 4, 8).

(ii) Unless a statute prohibits the transfer of an employee during the probation period, the authorities cannot impose a condition de hors the law (para 8).

(iii) Note No. 3 in the transfer order dated 10.07.2026, which barred relieving an employee on probation for joining the transferred place of posting, is on the face of it arbitrary and unreasonable (para 8).

(iv) Following Monika v. State of Rajasthan, a probationer can be transferred from one place to another during the probation period (paras 5, 9).

(v) The State could not refute the legal position or the ratio in Monika (para 6).

(vi) The learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition; the order dated 17.09.2026 was set aside and the respondents were directed to execute the transfer order and relieve the appellant immediately (para 10).

(paras 3–10)

Case Details: Govind v. State of Rajasthan (2026:RJ-JD:47732-DB)

Final Outcome: Special appeal allowed; Single Judge order dated 17.09.2026 quashed and set aside; respondents directed to execute the transfer order dated 10.07.2026 and relieve the appellant immediately.

Effect on lower order: Order dated 17.09.2026 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition overruled / set aside (para 10).

Case: Govind v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:47732-DB

Case No.: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1180 of 2026

Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Division Bench)

Date of Decision: 1 October 2026

Bench: Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma (order authored by Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur)

Counsel: Mr. Manoj Bohra for the appellant; Mr. S.S. Rathore, AAG, with Mr. Yuvraj Singh Rathore for the respondents

Relevant Acts & Rules: Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951; transfer order dated 10.07.2026 (Note No. 3)

Impugned Order: Order dated 17.09.2026 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition (the writ petition number is not stated in the Division Bench order)

Source: Rajasthan High Court (official website)

Key Holdings of the Rajasthan High Court

• There is no provision in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 that prohibits the transfer of a probationer (para 8).
• Without a statutory prohibition, the authorities cannot add a condition de hors the law to a transfer order (para 8).
• A note that a probationer "shall not be relieved" for joining the transferred place of posting is on the face of it arbitrary and unreasonable (para 8).
• Monika v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No. 601/2024) holds that a probationer can be transferred during probation (para 9).
• The State conceded that it could not refute the legal position canvassed by the appellant (para 6).
• Once a valid transfer order is passed, the authorities must give effect to it by relieving the employee (paras 5, 10).

Brief Facts of the Case

The appellant, Govind, was selected for the post of Junior Assistant and was posted in the office of the District Collector, Balotra, on probation for a period of two years (para 3).

While working at Balotra, he was transferred to the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Shergarh, District Jodhpur, by an order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the competent authorities (para 3).

Despite the transfer, the respondents did not relieve him. They relied on a note in the transfer order itself, which said that any employee who is under suspension, or who is in the probation period, shall not be relieved for joining the transferred place of posting (para 3).

Aggrieved by this condition and by not being relieved to join at Shergarh, the appellant filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed it by order dated 17.09.2026. The appellant then filed the present special appeal before the Division Bench (paras 2–3).

The respondents in the appeal were the State of Rajasthan through the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balotra; the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur; and the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, through its Registrar.

Issues Before the High Court

1. Whether Note No. 3 in the transfer order dated 10.07.2026, barring the relieving of probationers, was arbitrary and unreasonable (paras 4, 8).
2. Whether the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 or any other statute prohibits the transfer of a probationer during the probation period (paras 4–5, 8).
3. Whether the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition, in light of the ratio in Monika v. State of Rajasthan (paras 5, 9–10).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Appellant's arguments (paras 4–5): Counsel for the appellant argued that Note No. 3 in the transfer order was, on the face of it, arbitrary and unreasonable. He submitted that there is no provision in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 which says that a person working as a probationer trainee shall not be transferred and posted at the transferred place of posting (para 4). Since there was no legal impediment to transferring a probationer, the authorities were under an obligation to relieve him once the transfer order was passed. He relied on the Division Bench decision in Monika v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No. 601/2024, decided on 16.07.2024, which held that there is no prohibition on the State transferring a probationer during the probation period (para 5). He prayed that the transfer order be given effect without pressing Note No. 3 (para 5).

State's response (para 6): Counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal. However, the Court recorded that he was not in a position to refute the legal position canvassed by the appellant, and more particularly the ratio in Monika (para 6). This is an important part of the order. The State did not point to any rule, circular or statutory provision that barred the transfer of a probationer.

Admitted position (para 8): The Court noted the admitted facts. The appellant had been transferred from Balotra to Shergarh on 10.07.2026. He had not been relieved only because of Note No. 3 in the transfer order. Because he was on probation, the competent authorities had not issued his relieving order (para 8).

No condition de hors the law (para 8): The Court stated the settled position: unless a statute prohibits the transfer of an employee during the probation period, the authorities cannot put a condition de hors the law. The Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 contain no condition that prohibits a probationer's transfer from one place to another. Therefore, inserting a condition in the transfer order that a person on probation shall not be relieved for joining the transferred place of posting is, on the face of it, arbitrary and unreasonable (para 8).

Precedent applied (para 9): The Bench reaffirmed that in Monika the Division Bench had held that a probationer can be transferred from one place to another during the probation period (para 9). The Court treated this as binding and applied it to the facts.

Error by the Single Judge (para 10): In view of this discussion, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had committed an error in rejecting the writ petition. The appeal was allowed (para 10).

Scope of the ruling: Note No. 3 also covered employees under suspension (para 3). The Division Bench's reasoning in paras 8–9 deals only with probationers. The order does not decide whether the same condition can apply to suspended employees. It also does not set out the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition.

Final Outcome and Directions

• D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1180/2026 allowed.
• Order dated 17.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside.
• Respondents directed to execute the transfer order of the appellant dated 10.07.2026.
• Appellant to be relieved from the office of the District Collector, Balotra, to join the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Shergarh, District Jodhpur, immediately.

Legal Principle Laid Down

A transfer order may contain only those conditions that have a basis in law. Where neither the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 nor any other statute prohibits the transfer of an employee during probation, the State cannot defeat a transfer by adding a note that a probationer shall not be relieved. Such a condition is de hors the law and is, on the face of it, arbitrary and unreasonable. A probationer may be transferred during the probation period, and once a valid transfer order is passed, the authorities must carry it out by relieving the employee. This follows the Division Bench ruling in Monika v. State of Rajasthan.

Precedents Relied Upon

• Monika v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No. 601/2024, decided on 16.07.2024 (Rajasthan High Court) – Relied upon – there is no prohibition on the State transferring a probationer during the probation period; a probationer can be transferred from one place to another. Discussed at paras 5, 6 and 9.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment.

Para 6: "Learned counsel for the respondents although vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, but, he is not in a position to refute the legal position canvassed before this Court and more particularly the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Monika (supra)."

Para 8: "It is a settled position of law that unless there is a prohibition in any statute for not transferring the employee from one place to another in probation period, the respondent authorities cannot put a condition de hors the law and since in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, there is no such condition, which prohibits a probationer’s transfer from one place to another, therefore, inserting a condition in the transfer order that if a person is on probation, he shall not be relieved for joining the transferred place of posting, is on the face of it, arbitrary and unreasonable."

Para 9: "In the case of Monika (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has also held that a probationer can be transferred from one place to another during his probation period."

Para 10: "In view of the discussions made above, the learned Single Bench has committed an error while rejecting the writ petition and therefore, the present appeal merits acceptance and the same is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 17.09.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For probationers in Rajasthan government service: Being on probation is not, by itself, a ground to refuse relieving after a transfer order. If you are held back only because of a blanket note in the transfer order, this ruling and Monika support a challenge (paras 8–9).
• For transferring and controlling authorities: Conditions in transfer orders must have a basis in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 or another statute. A blanket bar on relieving probationers is likely to be struck down as arbitrary (para 8). Once a transfer order is issued, the relieving order should follow.
• For the State and its law officers: The State could not refute the ratio in Monika (para 6). Defending similar notes in future transfer lists may be difficult unless a specific statutory basis is shown.
• For a service law advocate: A challenge to such a condition can be framed on two grounds: the absence of any statutory bar in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and the binding Division Bench rulings in Monika and Govind (paras 8–10). Where a writ petition is dismissed, a special appeal before the Division Bench is the remedy used in this case.
• For employees under suspension: The same note also covered suspended employees, but the Court's reasoning addressed only probationers (paras 3, 8). Suspended employees should take independent legal advice on their own facts.
• For Single Benches and tribunals: With two Division Bench rulings on the point, writ petitions against similar conditions are likely to be decided in line with Govind and Monika (paras 9–10).

In practice, transfer disputes in Rajasthan government service often turn on whether a condition in a transfer list is backed by the service rules. This ruling makes clear that an administrative note cannot add a disqualification that the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 do not contain. Employees and departments dealing with transfer order challenges before the Rajasthan High Court will find the ruling a short and clear statement of the law on the transfer of probationer employees.

FAQs on Transfer of Probationer

1. What did the Rajasthan High Court hold in Govind v. State of Rajasthan?

The Division Bench held that a note in a transfer order barring the relieving of employees on probation is arbitrary and unreasonable, since the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 do not prohibit the transfer of a probationer. It set aside the Single Judge's order and directed that the appellant be relieved immediately (paras 8–10).

2. Can a probationer be transferred during the probation period in Rajasthan?

Yes. Relying on Monika v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that a probationer can be transferred from one place to another during the probation period, as no statute prohibits it (paras 8–9).

3. Can the authorities refuse to relieve a transferred probationer because of a note in the transfer order?

No. Without a statutory prohibition, the authorities cannot put a condition de hors the law. A note that a probationer shall not be relieved is, on the face of it, arbitrary and unreasonable (para 8).

4. What happened to the Single Judge's order in this case?

The Single Judge's order dated 17.09.2026, which had dismissed the writ petition, was quashed and set aside by the Division Bench, which found that the Single Bench had committed an error (para 10).

5. Does this ruling also apply to employees under suspension?

The note in the transfer order covered both suspended employees and probationers, but the Court's findings dealt only with probationers. The order does not decide the position of suspended employees (paras 3, 8).

Keywords: 2026:RJ-JD:47732-DB, Govind v. State of Rajasthan, transfer of probationer, probationer transfer Rajasthan, Rajasthan Service Rules 1951, transfer order condition arbitrary, relieving order, Junior Assistant probation, Monika v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal Writ 1180/2026, service law advocate, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Rajasthan High Court reportable judgments
• Dismissal for unauthorised absence held disproportionate – Sheela Verma
• Supreme Court reportable judgments

Download Judgment PDF – Govind v. State of Rajasthan

Judgment PDF: 2026:RJ-JD:47732-DB – Govind v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Spl. Appeal (Writ) No. 1180/2026) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Rajasthan High Court (official website).

Read more: Rajasthan High Court · Service Law · Transfer & Posting