Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ladu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 November, 2021
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12936/2021
Ladu Singh S/o Shri Goverdhan Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
Bhojawas, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Pali,
District Pali.
2. The District Collector (Land Records), Pali, District Pali.
3. The Tehsildar (Land Records), Tehsil Marwar Junction,
District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hamir Singh sidhu with
Mr. Pradeep Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrigraj Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
25/11/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order of transfer dated 15/9/2021 (Annex.P/6),
whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Patwar Mandal,
Manda, Tehsil - Marwar Junction to Patwar Mandal, Kodiya, Tehsil
- Sojat by the District Collector (Land Records), Pali.
It is indicated in the writ petition that action of the
respondents in transferring the petitioner, in the circumstance of
the case, is not justified inasmuch as the petitioner has been
transferred from one District to another, whereas, 39 posts are
lying vacant in Tehsil, Marwar Junction, from where the petitioner
has been transferred, the order of transfer has been made on the
complaint of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Manda, transfer on which
(2 of 4) [CW-12936/2021]
ground is contrary to the provisions of Rule 9 (ii) and 412 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 ('the Rules,
1957').
A reply to the writ petition has been filed inter alia indicating
that the petitioner was posted at Patwar Mandal, Manda in July,
2012 and since then he has been working at the said place. Earlier
the petitioner was transferred by order dated 6/9/2019, however,
the same came to be stayed by this Court on account of wrong
mentioning of the fact that the petitioner was transferred at his
own request, which order came to be cancelled by the District
Collector on 18/8/2021.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has been now
transferred on the basis of administrative exigency, whereby,
along with the petitioner, by the impugned order three more
persons have been transferred.
Further submissions have been made that the transfer has
not been effected on account of any alleged complaint and the
same has been made purely on the basis of administrative
exigency. Submission have also been made that irrespective of
vacant posts available at Tehsil - Marwar Junction, it is for the
authority to determine the requirement at the said Tehsil and/or at
another Tehsil. The distance between the two places of posting is
about 40-50 kms and, therefore, it cannot be said that the action
of the respondents is in any manner prejudicial to the petitioner
and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the
allegations that the petitioner has been transferred based on the
complaint made by the Sarpanch and that the action of cancelling
the earlier transfer order dated 6/9/2019, which was stayed by
(3 of 4) [CW-12936/2021]
this Court was only with a view to make way for passing the
present order and, therefore, the petition deserves to be accepted.
Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in
Rajpal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.Civil Writ Petition
no. 544/2021 decided on 18/3/2021.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The foundation of the present writ petition is that the
petitioner has been transferred based on the complaint, posts are
lying vacant in Tehsil Marwar Junction and that the same is
contrary to the provisions of Rule 9 (ii) of the Rules, 1957, which
prohibits transfer on account of unsatisfactory conduct.
The respondents in their response have categorically
indicated that the complaint, if any against the petitioner, is not
the basis for his transfer, though the petitioner by way of rejoinder
has insisted that he has been transferred on account of complaint
against him and has annexed the complaint as well as newspaper
cuttings.
As to what impression the petitioner wants to give regarding
his working, wherein, on the one hand the State is denying having
transferred the petitioner on account of complaint, the petitioner
insists that he has been transferred on account of complaint, is for
the petitioner to reflect. The reason for insistence of the petitioner
on the said aspect cannot be appreciated simply with a view to
bring his case within the purview of provisions of Rule 9(ii) of the
Rules, 1957.
The respondents have categorically indicated that the
petitioner has served at the present place of posting for over nine
years and has been transferred at a place which is about 40-50
(4 of 4) [CW-12936/2021]
kms. away from the present place of posting. As such, no case for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the
order impugned is made out.
So far as the judgment in the case of Rajpal Singh (supra) is
concerned, the coordinate Bench relying on the judgment in Inder
Singh vs. State of Raj. : (2007 ) 1 RLW (Raj.) 737 has reiterated
the stipulations indicated in the said judgment and has come to
the conclusion that the competent authority has to satisfy itself
about interest of efficiency of work or to fill a vacant post.
Admittedly, the post where the petitioner has been transferred is a
vacant post and as such the judgment in the case of Rajpal Singh
(supra) also does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the
writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
20-baweja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
