Rajasthan High Court
Dhirendra Singh Son Of Shri Prem ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10127/2022
Dhirendra Singh Son Of Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Basant Vihar Colony, Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director (Non Gazzattee), Medical And Health Services
And Additional Director (Administration), Panchyatiraj
(Medical) Department, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya
Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bharatpur District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
4. Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Block Sewar,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal Giri Goswami.
Mr. Bajrang Sepat.
For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
17/10/2022
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in
this writ petition has been considered and decided by this court in
the matter of Pawan Kumar Chorasiya Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8912/2022 along with
other connected matters) decided on 23.09.2022, wherein the
following order was passed:-
"These matters relate to violation of Rule
8(i)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
(Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
issue involved in these writ petitions has
been considered and decided by the
Coordinate Bench of this court at Principal
(2 of 3) [CW-10127/2022]
Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Ravindra
Kumar Tailor & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.8828/2022 and other connected matters
) decided on 19.9.2022, wherein it has
been held as under:-
"Coming to the provisions of Rule 8, they
have been interpreted many times over and
its compliance has been held to be
mandatory; the reference in this regard
may be made to the orders in Kiran Kumari
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on
15.01.2020, Krishna Devi vs. State of
Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.312/2021 decided on 02.08.2021 and
State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker :
D.B.S.A.W. No.683/2021 decided on
14.01.2022, besides the judgment in the
case of Semlata (supra) and Rekha Kumari
(supra).
In view of the above, it is apparent that the
plea raised by the respondents qua the
cases wherein the orders have been passed
by indicating the petitioners as 'surplus',
regarding there being no requirement to
comply with the provisions of Rule 8 of the
Rules of 2011 cannot be countenanced.
A submission was made that in view of
order in the case of State of Rajasthan vs.
Rekha Kumari (supra), for which on one
aspect the submission made is that the
judgment is sub-silento, as the Division
Bench has approved the transfers, on
account of consent granted by the Minister
for Medical and Health Services,
Government of Rajasthan, who has been
given independent charge of Medical and
Health services under the Panchayati Raj
Department, which has been held as
sufficient, the same would suffice.
However, it would be seen that in the
present orders impugned, there is no
reference to any consent granted by the
concerned Minister. Further, the said
consent can only suffice in cases of inter-
district transfers in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of
the Rules of 2011, which requires consent
of the Panchayati Raj Department for
effecting inter district transfers.
Insofar as the transfers within the same
Panchayat Samiti and from one Panchayat
Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within
the same district is concerned, the plea
raised is that the said transfers are
(3 of 3) [CW-10127/2022]
governed by the provisions of Rules 289
and 290 of the Rules of 1996, which plea, is
full of contradictions, inasmuch as on the
one hand the respondents do not want to
accept the petitioners even as transferred
employees, and on the other hand, are
seeking to claim that they are governed by
the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, which are
applicable to the employees of the
Panchayati Raj Department only and
therefore, such contradictory stand rather
mutually destructive stand, cannot be
accepted."
Counsel for the respondents have not
disputed the submissions made by counsel
for the petitioners.
In that view of the matter, these writ
petitions are allowed in view of the
judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench
of this court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in
the matter of Ravindra Kumar Tailor
(supra). The respective orders impugned
herein are set aside. However, it is made
clear that the respondents after compliance
of the provisions of Rule 8(i)(ii) of the Rules
of 2011 would be free to pass appropriate
orders. Copy of this order be separately
placed in each connected file."
Counsel for the respondents has not disputed this fact.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed in
view of the judgment passed by this court in the matter of Pawan
Kumar Chorasiya (supra).
The order passed by the respondents dated 15.06.2022 qua
the petitioner is set aside. However, it is made clear that the
respondents after compliance of the provisions of Rule 8(ii) of the
Rules of 2011 would be free to pass appropriate order.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/128
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
