Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parvati vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9641/2022
Parvati W/o Mahendra Singh, aged about 54 Years, at present
posted at Sub Health Centre Sardarpura Khalsa, Tehsil Rawatsar,
District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director (Non Gazette), Medical and Health Services and
Additional Director (Administration), Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh.
4. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh.
5. Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Khadav.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG with
Mr. Shreyansh Mehta.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
19/09/2022
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has been transferred in violation of Rule 8 (iii) of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities), Rules, 2011
('Rules of 2011'), inasmuch as consent of the Panchayati Raj
Department has not been taken.
(2 of 3) [CW-9641/2022]
The order impugned dated 05.07.2022 (Annex.1)
transferring the petitioner from Sub Health Centre, Sardarpura
Khalsa, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh to Sub Health Centre,
Suliawas, District Sikar, specifically indicates the consent accorded
by the Minister concerned, which reads as under: -
"8- ea=he.My lfpoky; jktLFkku ljdkj ds vkns'k
Øekad i-11 ¼1 ,e,e½@2018 t;iqj] fnukad 22-11-2021 ds }kjk
fpfdRlk ea=h egkns; dks iapk;rh jkt foHkkx ds v/khuLFk fpfd-
,oa- Lok- foHkkx dk Lora= izHkkj vkaofVr gSA mDr vkns'k
ekuuh; ea=h egksn; ls vuqeksfnr gSA"
The Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha
Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022 decided on 17.08.2022, inter-
alia, came to the following conclusion: -
"The present set of appeals involves inter-district
transfers by the Medical and Health Department of its
employees, whose services have earlier been transferred
to the Panchayati Raj Department. During pendency of the
appeals, learned AAG Shri Rajpurohit, has filed an
additional affidavit with official notesheets, as per which, a
proposal was moved to grant ex-post facto sanction to
validate transfer orders of surplus transferred employees
of the Panchayati Raj Department.
It is noteworthy from the affidavit that as per the
distribution of Departments amongst the Cabinet of
Ministers, Shri Parsadi Lal Meena, the Minister for Medical
and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan has been
given independent charge of Medical and Health Services
under the Panchayati Raj Department.
After obtaining legal opinion and referring to the
Division Bench judgment in the case of Mool Shankar
(supra), the file was moved for grant of ex-post facto
sanction to validate the transfer orders passed earlier by
the Medical and Health Department. The Departmental
officers proposed issuance of expost facto sanction and the
(3 of 3) [CW-9641/2022]
Minister Shri Meena has approved the said proposal on
21.03.2022.
As a consequence of the above development, we are
of the view that the Panchayati Raj Department has
lawfully granted ex-post facto sanction as per the
requirement of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 to validate the
questioned transfer orders.
It was the fervent contention of the learned counsel
for the respondent employees that ex-post facto consent
does not relate to the transfer orders at hand because the
date mentioned in the office note is 22.11.2021. This
contention is not tenable for the simple reason that this
date refers to the distribution of departments amongst the
Ministers, whereby independent charge of Medical and
Health Services coming under the purview of Panchayati
Raj Department was assigned to Shri Parsadi Lal Meena,
the Minister for Medical and Health Services. As is evident
from the note-sheets annexed with the additional affidavit,
both the Departments have concurred on the transfers,
which are subject matter of challenge in this litigation. The
action so taken is compliant of the view taken by the
Division Bench in the case of Mool Shankar (supra) and
hence, the requirement of consent of the Panchayati Raj
Department for effecting transfers of the transferred
employees of the Panchayati Raj Department has been
satisfied."
(emphasis applied)
In view of above, it cannot be said that the order impugned
is in violation of provisions of Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules of 2011.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the
same is therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
48-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
