Sunil Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2892 Raj

HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14209/2021

Sunil Kumari W/o Shri Ravindra Singh, aged about 34 Years, Bhiwani, Haryana 12701. At present residing at Community Health Centre, Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Medical and Health Services, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

5. The Block Medical and Health Officer, Taranagar, Churu, Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma.

Through video conferencing.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

22/02/2022

Heard.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by order

dated 30.09.2021 (Annex.2) the petitioner, a female health

worker, has been transferred from Churu to Jodhpur, which is in

(2 of 3) [CW-14209/2021]

violation of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred

Activities) Rules, 2011 ("Rules of 2011").

Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of

Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020.

Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the

respondents, made submissions that the issue has been further

deliberated by the Division Bench of this Court in State of

Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mool Shanker : D.B.S.A.W. No.683/2021

decided on 14.01.2022, wherein, it has been observed that in the

case of inter-district transfer, even post facto consent from the

Panchayati Raj Department can be taken.

However, admittedly no post facto consent is available in the

respondent Department and in any case, in the case of Mool

Shanker (supra) also the Division Bench upheld the setting aside

of the order. The operative portion of the order passed by the

Division Bench in the case of Mool Shanker (supra) reads as

under: -

"So far as the case of Krishna Devi is concerned, this is the case of inter-district transfer. Her transfer has been made without the consent of the Panchayati Raj department which the learned Single Judge has rightly not approved. However, as observed above, in her case and all other similar cases, nothing stated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge or in this judgment would prevent the authorities from obtaining the ex-post facto consent of the Panchayati Raj department. If so done, the same would be seen as validation of the original order of transfer. It would not be necessary for the Health department to issue fresh orders of transfers for such purpose."

In view of above fact situation, insofar as the present

petition is concerned, the transfer of the petitioner being in

violation of the provisions of Rules of 2011, the petition is allowed.

The   order   impugned        dated      30.09.2021          (Annex.2)   qua   the



                                                                           (3 of 3)                [CW-14209/2021]

petitioner is quashed and set aside. The respondents will be free

to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law laid in the

case of Mool Shanker (supra).

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 52-DJ/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)