Probationers may be transferred and cannot be denied relieving absent statutory prohibition.

Govind, a Junior Assistant appointed on probation for two years, was transferred from the District Collector’s office, Balotra, to the Sub-divisional Officer’s office, Shergarh, by order dated 10 July 2026.

The respondents did not relieve him because Note No. 3 to the transfer order stated that employees on probation or under suspension would not be relieved to join their new postings.

After his writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 17 September 2026, Govind filed this special appeal.

Whether a probationer may be transferred to another place during the probation period.

Whether the respondents could refuse to relieve Govind under Note No. 3 of the transfer order when the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 contain no prohibition on transferring a probationer.

The Court held that, absent a statutory prohibition, the authorities cannot impose a condition contrary to law preventing a probationer from joining a transferred posting.

It found no provision in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 prohibiting the transfer of a probationer.

The Court also relied on Monika v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 601/2024, decided 16 July 2024, which held that a probationer may be transferred during probation.

Govind’s transfer had been ordered by the competent authorities, but he was not relieved solely because he was on probation and Note No. 3 applied.

Since the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 did not prohibit such a transfer, the Court held that the note’s restriction was arbitrary and unreasonable.

The decision in Monika supported the conclusion that probation does not itself bar transfer.

The Court directed the respondents to give effect to the transfer order dated 10 July 2026 and immediately relieve Govind to join the Sub-divisional Officer’s office at Shergarh.