Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:4415]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1311/2025
Hardev Paliwal W/o Shri Satish Kumar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Barlimanda, Tehsil Pokaran District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore.
3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sanchore,
District Jalore.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1323/2025, 1331/2025, 1345/2025,
1396/2025, 1398/2025, 1401/2025, 1403/2025, 1425/2025,
1596/2025, 1607/2025
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Chouhan.
Mr. JS Bhaleria
Mr. Manish Patel
Mr. Ramesh Kumar
Mr. Devendera Sanwalot
Mr. Pramendra Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. IR Choudhary, AAG (through VC)
assisted by Mr. Pawan Bharti.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order(Oral) 23/01/2025
1. Vide this common order the aforesaid Bunch is being disposed of together as similar facts and issues are involved therein.
2. Petitioners are before this Court assailing their respective transfer orders alleging that the same are in violation of Section (Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 11:12:26 PM) 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as well as judgment rendered by this Court in Kera Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2909/2024.
3. Having heard the rival contentions, it is borne out that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by Kera Ram (supra) and in fact, in some what similar circumstances, another Bunch of petitions titled Udai Bhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 790/2025,was disposed of in the following terms :-
"5. From the contents of the impugned order, it transpires that petitioner has been transferred from Panchayat Samiti Raipur to Panchayat Samiti Mandal without specifying as to which Gram Panchayat in the Panchayat Samiti of Mandal he has to join. He is thus to assume his charge on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari without knowing which Gram Panchayat to serve for.
6. In this context, reference may be had to the guidelines laid down in Kera Ram ibid, relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"QUESTIONS OF LAW:
13. The following questions of law are being formulated, which need to be addressed to adjudicate on the merits of impugned orders:-
1. Does the omission to mention a specific location of Gram Panchayat for a Panchayat Samiti official's new duty station invalidate a transfer order?
xxxxxxxxx
6. What is the legislative intent and scope of the State's power under the non-obstante clause in Section 89(8)(A) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as amended by Act No. 23/1994 in Rajasthan?
xxxxxxxxx
30. In the light of discussion and analysis contained in preceding paragraphs let us now revert to address the questions framed in para 13, ibid:-
ANSWERS:-
**Question No. 1:** The answer to the first question revolves around the principle of administrative exigency. As highlighted in the judgment of Chander Kanta by my esteemed colleague Justice Dinesh Mehta, the absence of a specified transfer location indicates a lack of due consideration. If the transferring authority is unaware of the required destination of the transferred official, the motive for transfer becomes questionable. It raises concerns about the possible misuse of administrative discretion or punitive intentions. A transfer order rooted in genuine administrative (Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 11:12:26 PM) need would specify the new duty location, allowing the official to promptly assume their duties. Therefore, the answer to the first question is affirmative.
xxxxxxxxx **Question No. 6:** The last question concerns the legislative intent behind Section 89(8)(a) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. This section emphasizes decentralization, delegating specific functions to Panchayats for managing human resources. The rules ensure effective implementation of this legislative intent. While the State Government holds overriding authority for issuing transfer orders, this power should not undermine the autonomy of Panchayati Raj Institutions.. Striking a balance is essential to maintain the local bodies' autonomy and constitutional integrity. Thus, while the State has absolute power to issue transfer orders, this power should not be exercised in a manner that undermines the faith in democratically elected Panchayati Raj Representatives."
7. In light of the aforesaid, the transfer orders impugned herein are not sustainable as the respective Gram Panchayats on which the petitioners are transferred as Gram Sevak have since not been specified."
4. The name of Gram Panchayat where the petitioners are supposed to join has not been mentioned which shows a complete lack of application of mind to determine administrative exigency which is stated to be the reason of transfer.
5. In the premise, writ petitions as numbered above are allowed. The respective impugned transfer orders qua the petitioners are set aside.
6. However, liberty is granted to pass fresh orders by specifying the name of the Gram Panchayat where the incumbents are supposed to join after transfer in case, work exigency so warrants, in accordance with Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 read with the judgment rendered in Kera Ramibid.
7. At this stage, Mr. I.R. Choudhary, learned Additional Advocate General submits that passing of the fresh orders requires prior sanction from the competent authority in view of the ban imposed by the Chief Secretary vide an administrative order dated 03.01.2024. In view thereof, in order to obviate any procedural (Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 11:12:26 PM) hurdle, it is made clear that since the transfer orders are being quashed vide mandamus of this Court, thus taking fresh administrative decision qua the petitioners shall be construed to be in continuation of the earlier transfer order. No prior sanction would thus be required in terms of the circular dated 03.01.2024 issued by the Chief Secretary.
8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
Jitender
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
(Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 11:12:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)