Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishna Jal 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. 8828/2022
Ravindra Kumar Tailor S/o Shri Ramchandra Tailor, aged about
42 Years, Resident of V-114, Shiv-Kripa, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Medical and
Health Services, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Government of Rajasthan Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara.
4. District Rerpoductive and Child Health Officer, Bhilwara.
5. The Nursing Superintendent, ANM Training Centre,
Bhilwara.
6. Zila Parishad Bhilwara, through its Chief Executive Officer.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8849/2022
Ramesh Gurjar S/o Shri Anna Ram, aged about 29 Years,
Resident of Village / Post Harsolav, Tehsil Merta City, District
Jodhpur (Raj.) Presently posted under BCMO office Mandore,
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Medical and
Health Services, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Government of Rajasthan Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur.
4. Zila Parishad Jodhpur, through its Chief Executive Officer.
5. Block Chief Medical Officer, Mandore, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(2 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8850/2022
Kalu Khatik S/o Shri Prabhulal Khatik, aged about 34 Years,
Resident of Mali Mohalla, Bhagwanpura Road, Kotri, Tehsil Kotri,
District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Medical and
Health Services, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Government of Rajasthan Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara.
4. District Rerpoductive and Child Health Officer, Bhilwara.
5. The Nursing Superintendent, ANM Training Centre,
Bhilwara.
6. Zila Parishad Bhilwara, through its Chief Executive Officer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8855/2022
Ramswaroop Kaswan S/o Shri Ramdayal, aged about 46 Years,
Resident of MP Gali, Degana, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Medical and
Health Services, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Government of Rajasthan Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nagaur.
4. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Degana, District Nagaur.
5. The Medical Officer In-Charge, Kitalsar, Block Degana,
Panchayat Samiti Degana, District Nagaur.
6. The Panchayat Samiti Degana, District Nagaur through its
Block Development Officer.
----Respondents
(3 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8863/2022
Sunita Kumari D/o Shri Satyaveer, aged about 32 Years, R/o
Ward No. 8, Poonia Mohalla, Chand Gothi, Churu, Presently
Posted at Block Chief Medical Inspector (Si), Rajgarh, District
Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Department of
Medical and Health, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department of Medical and Health,
Government of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur.
3. Divisional Chief Medical Officer, Rajgarh, District Churu
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8864/2022
Arun Kumar Purohit S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Purohit, aged
about 39 Years, Resident of Village / Post Motras, Tehsil Badnore,
District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Medical and
Health Services, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Government of Rajasthan Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara.
4. District Rerpoductive and Child Health Officer, Bhilwara.
5. The Nursing Superintendent, ANM Training Centre,
Bhilwara.
6. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8865/2022
Anita Kumari D/o Shri Dariya Singh Rahar, aged about 32 Years,
Resident of Village Bhuwadi, Tehsil Rajgarh District Churu. at
Present Working As A.N.M. Posted at CHC Prithvisar, Block Churu
District Churu.
(4 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health, Government of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural and
Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.
4. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Add. Director (Admn.), Panchayati Raj (Medical)
Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
5. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ratangarh District
Churu.
6. Block Chief Medical Officer, Churu District Churu.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8866/2022
Ravindra Meena S/o Shri Ramsingh Meena, aged about 30 Years,
R/o Village Lohari Khurd, Post Lohari Kalan, Tehsil Jahajpur,
District Bhilwara presently working on the post of Nurse Grade II
at CHC Jahajpur District Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary
Medical and Health Department, Govt. of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical, Health and Family
Welfare Services, Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara.
4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Jahajpur District Bhilwara.
5. Medical Officer Inchrage, CHC Jahajpur District Bhilwara
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8871/2022
Kaushalya W/o Shri Subhash Chandra, aged about 41 Years,
Resident of Beeramsar, Churu, at present posted as ANM at PHC
Tidiyasar, Ratangarh, Churu.
----Petitioner
(5 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Additional Director (Administration) Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ratangarh, District
Churu.
4. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ratangarh, District
Churu
5. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8876/2022
Harishankar Regar S/o Shri Kailash Chand Regar, aged about 32
Years, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Ward No. 2 Jahajpur, District
Bhilwara presently working on the post of Nurse Grade-II at CHC
Jahajpur District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary
Medical and Health Department, Govt. of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical, Health and Family
Welfare Services, Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara.
4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Jahajpur District Bhilwara.
5. Medical Officer Incharge, CHC Jahajpur District Bhilwara.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8887/2022
Phula Meena D/o Ramkumar Meena, W/o Dhanraj Meena, aged
about 30 Years, R/o Village and Post Sarsiya, Tehsil Jahajpur,
District Bhilwara presently working on the post of Nurse Grade-II
at CHC Jahajpur District Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
(6 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary
Medical and Health Department, Govt. of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical, Health and Family
Welfare Services, Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara.
4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Jahajpur District Bhilwara.
5. Medical Officer Inchrage, CHC Jahajpur District Bhilwara
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8888/2022
Shilpa Meena D/o Shri Ramsukh Meena, W/o Mukesh Kumar
Meena, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village and Post Tiker, Tehsil
Jahajpur, District Bhilwara presently working on the post of
Nurse Grade-II at CHC Jahajpur District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary
Medical and Health Department, Govt. of Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical, Health and Family
Welfare Services, Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara.
4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Jahajpur District Bhilwara.
5. Medical Officer Inchrage, CHC Jahajpur District Bhilwara
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8902/2022
Kavita Devi W/o Ravidutt, aged about 34 Years, Resident of Ward
No. 04, Village Ramgarh, 16 DPN, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.) presently working as ANM at Community
Health Center, Ramgarh, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
(7 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
2. The Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health
Services-Cum-Additional Director (Admn.), Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8904/2022
Sajjana Kumari W/o Rajesh Kumar, aged about 31 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 8, Ramgarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
presently working as ANM at Sub Health Center, Barwali (Nohar),
District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health
Services-Cum-Additional Director (Admn.), Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8905/2022
Kulvinder Jeet Kour W/o Pramjeet Singh, aged about 57 Years,
R/o Ward No. 5, Gogameri, 5 GGM, District Hanumangarh (Raj.),
presently working as ANM at Primary Health Center, Gogameri,
District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
(8 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
2. The Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health
Services-Cum-Additional Director (Admn.), Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8919/2022
Radha Kumari D/o Om Prakash, aged about 31 Years, Resident
of Ward No. 11, Parlika, 20 NTR, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
presently working as ANM at Primary Health Center, Parlika,
District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health
Services-Cum-Additional Director (Admn.), Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh,
District Hanumangarh.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayati Raj, Government
Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8933/2022
Maya Devi D/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 29 Years, Resident of
Chhoti Gandhi, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh. at present
working as A.N.M. Posted at PHC Baramsar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health, Government of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
(9 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural and Panchayati
Raj, Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Add. Director (Admn.), Panchayati Raj (Medical)
Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
5. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh
6. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8941/2022
Satrupa D/o Shri Sant Lal, W/o Krishan Kumar, aged 40 Years,
Resident of VPO Ajeetpura, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
At present working as A.N.M. posted at CHC Fefana, Block Nohar
District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health, Government of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural and
Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Add. Director (Admn.), Panchayati Raj (Medical)
Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
5. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh
6. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8972/2022
Bhanwar Singh Rathore S/o Late Shree Jabbar Singh, aged
about 42 Years, R/o Village Narnadi, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur
at Present Working at Ahore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(10 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Additional Director (Administration) Panchayat Raj
(Medical) Department, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jalore, District Jalore.
4. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ahore, District
Jalore.
5. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9027/2022
Mukesh Ola W/o Shri Vijendra Singh, aged about 39 Years, R/o
Village-Post Ghardana Kalan, Tehsil - Buhana, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan to the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Govt. of Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director (Non-Gazzeted), Medical and Health Service
and Additional Director (Administration), Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur.
4. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nagaur, District
Nagaur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9079/2022
Manju Vishnoi W/o Bhajan Lal, aged about 32 Years, Resident of
44, Thali Ka Bera, Bhaduo Ki Dhani, Digaon, Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health Care, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jalore.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore.
----Respondents
(11 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9101/2022
Krishna Jal W/o Shri Sunil Kumar, aged about 35 Years, Resident
of PHC Topariya, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh at present
posted as ANM at PHC Topariya, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health, Government of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Additional Director (Administration) Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh.
6. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9114/2022
Saroj Devi D/o Shri Bhud Ram, aged about 34 Years, Resident of
Ratanpura, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh at present posted
as ANM at PHC Jasana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health, Government of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh.
4. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Additional Director (Administration) Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh.
6. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
(12 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9116/2022
Sona W/o Shri Dilip Kumar, aged about 34 Years, Resident of
V.p.o. Lalaniya, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh at present
posted as ANM at PHC Birkali, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health, Government of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
4. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Additional Director (Administration) Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
5. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh.
6. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9133/2022
Bhanwari Choudhary W/o Shri Narsa Ram, aged about 55 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 12 Gordi Chancha, Degana, Nagaur, at
present posted as Female Health Worker at CHC Degana,
Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nagaur.
4. Block Chief Medical and Health offier, Rajgarh, District
Churu.
----Respondents
(13 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9368/2022
Ramjas Jat S/o Shri Gopal Ji Jat, aged about 44 Years, R/o V.P.O.
Pander Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health Service, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Director, (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Service,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9404/2022
Bhom Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, aged about 41 Years, R/o
Hafiya @ Sankhali Bandhada, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
Medical and Health Department, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Services,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Principal Secretary, Rajasthan Panchayati Raj and
Rural Department, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Barmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9452/2022
Manju D/o Kishan Lal W/o Parameshwar Lal, aged about 31
Years, R/o Village Daudsar, Tehsil Ratangarh, Dist. Churu (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of
Medical, Health and Family Welfare, Government of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Director (Administration), Medical and Health
Services, Health Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ratangarh, Dist.
Churu, Rajasthan.
(14 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
4. The Block Medical and Health Officer, Ratangarh,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9733/2022
Tulsa Mahawar W/o Panna Lal Mahwar, aged about 53 Years, R/o
F-353, Rama Vuha, Behind St. Anselms School, Bhilwara (Raj.).
Posted As A ANM at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non-Gezetted), Medical and Health Services,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara.
4. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara, District
Bhilwara.
5. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9821/2022
Manju Sheela D/o Shri Tola Ram, aged about 37 Years, Resident
of Near Gagariya Kuan, Thelasar, Tehsil and District Churu
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health, Government of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director (Non-Gazzetted), Medical and Health
Services, Rajasthan Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Churu (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10474/2022
Raman Lal Ahari S/o Shri Shanker Lal Ahari, age about 48 Years,
R/o Parda Chobisa Tehsil Ramgarh District Dungerpur Rajasthan
314034
----Petitioner
(15 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Joint Secretary, the
Department of Medical and Health Government of
Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), the Department
of Medical and Health Government of Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Community Health Center, Ramgarh District
Dungerpur.
4. Chief Health and Medical Officer, Dungerpur District
Dungerpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10915/2022
Bhagwati W/o Shri Narsinga Ram, aged about 34 Years, Resident
of Vishnu Nagar, Koliyana, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health Care, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Barmer.
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Dhorimana,
District Barmer.
5. Kamla Manju, ANM, Sub Center Ratanpura, Panchayat
Samiti Dhorimana, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11176/2022
Roshani Kumari W/o Shri Subhash Chander, Daughter of Shri
Jasmant Ram, aged about 33 Years, Resident of Khopran, Gram
Panchayat Bhangooli, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the
Government, Department of Medical and Health Service,
Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Government
of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
(16 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
3. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Additional Director (Administration), Panchayati Raj
(Medical Department, Rajasthan Jaipur
4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh
5. Senior Medical Officer In Charge, Community Health
Center, Phephana, District Hanumangarh
6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10776/2022
Dr. Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, aged about
31 Years, R/o Ward No. 25, Dariba, Bidasar, Tehsil Sujangarh,
District Churu, Rajasthan. at present holding the post of
Medical Officer, Chapar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of
Medical and Health Services, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Dy. Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Group-2,
Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. The Director (Public Health), Medical Health and Family
Welfare, Govt. of Rajasthan Swasthya Bhawan,
Yudhisthar Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ratangarh, Churu,
Rajasthan.
5. The Block Medical Officer, Sujangarh, Churu, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11292/2022
Peena Bunkar W/o Sh. Manilal Bunkar, aged about 28 Years,
Resident of Bunkar Mohalla, Makhiya Kala, Sareri Chhoti, Garhi,
District Banswara (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Medical, Health
and Family Welfare Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
(17 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
2. Director (Non Gazette), Medical, Health and Family
Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director, Medical, Health and Family Welfare
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Banswara (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11698/2022
Sangeeta Kumari W/o Shri Sanwar Mal Saran, aged about 37
Years, Resident of Ward No. 08, Jhariya, District Churu (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), Panchayatiraj
(Medical) Department, Rajasthan Tilak Marg,
Swasthyabhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Churu, District Churu
(Raj.).
4. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Block Ratangarh,
District Churu (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11710/2022
Smt. Sarla W/o Shri Vijay Kumar, aged about 35 Years,
Resident of Ward No. 03, Ratangarh, District Churu (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), Panchayatiraj
(Medical) Department, Rajasthan Tilak Marg,
Swasthyabhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
(18 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Churu, District Churu
(Raj.).
4. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Block Ratangarh,
District Churu (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11714/2022
Smt. Preetika Prajapat W/o Shri Deepak Chejara, aged about
34 Years, Resident of Chejaro Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 15, Bissau,
District Jhunjhunu (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), Panchayatiraj
(Medical) Department, Rajasthan Tilak Marg, Swasthya
Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Churu, District Churu
(Raj.).
4. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Block Ratangarh,
District Churu (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11813/2022
Dinesh Khatik S/o Shri Jagnath Khatik, aged about 38 Years,
Byecaste Khatik, R/o V.P.O. Aakalsada, Badnor, District
Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health Service, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
(19 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11829/2022
Sampat Lal Khatik S/o Shri Magan Lal, aged about 45 Years,
Byecaste Khatik, R/o V.P.O. Khatola, Asind, District Bhilwara
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health Service, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11972/2022
Asha Rajput W/o Shri Jagdish Singh Solanki, aged about 51
Years, R/o Badnor, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health Service, Secretariat,
Jaipur, (Raj.).
2. Director, (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12283/2022
Sonal Ben Patel W/o Shri Chirag Kumar Damore, aged about
39 Years, R/o P.H.C., Sallopat, Gangadtalai, District Banswara
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical
and Health Department, Rajasthan Jaipur (Raj.).
(20 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
2. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health
Services and Additional Director (Administration)
Panchayati Raj (Medical) Department, Rajasthan Jaipur
(Raj.).
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical and
Health Services, Rajasthan Jaipur.
4. The Joint Director, Medical and Health Services,
Rajasthan Banswara.
5. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Banswara
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12337/2022
Rohit Kumar S/o Shri Mangal Singh, aged about 47 Years, R/o
House No. 604, Satya Villa, Tripura Colony, Thikariya,
Banswara, District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical
and Health Department, Rajasthan Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health
Services and Additional Director (Administration)
Panchayati Raj (Medical) Department, Rajasthan Jaipur
(Raj.).
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical and
Health Services, Rajasthan Jaipur.
4. The Joint Director, Medical and Health Services,
Rajasthan Banswara.
5. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Banswara
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12522/2022
Sanwari W/o Shri Rakesh, aged about 36 Years, Resident of
Village Barla, District Baran, at present posted as ANM, at Sub
Health Center, Jogiya Basti, Loonkaransar, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
(21 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department
of Medical and Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bikaner.
4. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Loonkaransar,
Bikaner.
5. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12569/2022
Sunita Meena W/o Vinod Kumar Meena, aged about 31 Years,
presently working as Female Health Worker at Sub Health
Center, Bhojrasar, Block Sardarshahar, District Churu, R/o Near
Hanuman Dhora, Ward No. 15, Sardarshahar, District Churu
(Raj.).
----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, Ratangarh, District
Churu.
4. Block Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sardarshahar,
District Churu.
5. Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree, Mr. Ankit
Choudhary, Mr. Vikas Bijrania, Mr.
Deepak Bansal, Mr. Majeet Godara,
Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Mr. Deepak
Pareek, Mr. O.P. Sangwa, Mr. Ramesh
Chandra Bishnoi, Mr. Teja Ram
Choudhary, Mr. R.S. Choudhary, Mr.
(22 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
R.R. Ankiya, Mr. S.P.S. Rathore, Mr.
M.S. Godara, Mr. Govind Suthar, Mr.
Rohit Kaswan, Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Mr.
Suresh Kumar Maru, Mr. Pramendra
Bohra, Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. H.R.
Vishnoi, Mr. V.S. Bhawla for Mr. R.S.
Bhardwaj, Mr. S.K. Verma, Mr.
Inderjeet Yadav, Mr. Mahaveer Singh,
Mr. Tanwar Singh, Mr. Ravindra Singh
Champawat, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Mr.
Vinod Kumar Sihag & Mr. H.R.
Chawla.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora for
Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
REPORTABLE
19/09/2022
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners
aggrieved against the orders whereby they have been transferred
by the Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and
Additional Director (Admin.) Panchayati Raj (Medical) Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
As all the writ petitioners have raised similar issue, i.e.
violation of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred
Activities), Rules, 2011 ('Rules of 2011'), all the petitions have
been taken up simultaneously for hearing and disposal.
The facts of Ravindra Kumar Tailor vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8828/2022 are being illustratively
indicated. The petitioner, a Nurse Grade-II, was appointed by
order dated 25.03.2008. During the course of his service, by order
dated 03.12.2015 while working at C.H.C., Devli, Tonk, he was
posted under working arrangement to A.N.M. Training Centre,
Bhilwara. By order dated 31.12.2020, the petitioner was
(23 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
transferred/posted at A.N.M. Training Centre, Bhilwara by
indicating the same as against the post of PHN.
While the petitioner was serving on the said post, an order
dated 18.02.2022 (Annex.5) came to be issued by the Secretary,
Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan, inter-alia providing
that all those whose salary was not being drawn from the post,
where they were working, and was being drawn from any other
place, they must report at the office of Chief Medical and Health
Officer.
By impugned order dated 15.06.2022 indicating that as the
person(s) named therein were surplus on account of their working
beyond the sanctioned posts, they were adjusted at the post
indicated against their names. It was further indicated that the
order was passed subject to decision in DBSAW No.271/2022 at
Jodhpur and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6421/2022 at Jaipur Bench.
Other petitions pertain to the orders passed transferring the
petitioners from one post to another, which are inter district/within
the same Panchayat Samiti/from one Panchayat Samiti to another
Panchayat Samiti.
Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petitions have been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that
the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioners is in
violation of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011,
inasmuch as the petitioners who are the transferred employees,
could only be transferred by the Administration and Establishment
Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, within the same Panchayat
Samiti, District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad from
one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the
same district and the Department concerned from one district to
(24 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
another district, with the consent of the Panchayati Raj
Department. It is submitted that the orders impugned which have
been passed by the Secretary, are in violation of provisions
wherein the transfers have taken place within the same Panchayat
Samiti/from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti
within the same district, or where the transfer is from one district
to another district, for lack of consent of the Panchayati Raj
Department.
Further submissions were made that merely on account of
the fact that the petitioners questioning order dated 15.06.2022
have been indicated as 'surplus', which aspect has been disputed
in several cases based on the material produced therein; the
provisions of Rules of 2011 cannot be given a go bye.
Reliance was placed on order in Samleta vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11862/2017 decided
on 14.11.2017, upheld in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Samleta :
D.B.S.A.W. No.736/2018 decided on 11.10.2018.
Further submissions were made that the order impugned
dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of
Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which
appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan
& Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by
judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of
post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the
case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders
of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker
(DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down
that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact
that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of
(25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the
same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of
compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus
employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and
consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set
aside.
Submissions were made that by way of interim order, in
some petitions, it was ordered that the petitioners may join the
transferred post without prejudice to their contentions in the
present petitions and therefore, the orders impugned be set aside
and the respondents be directed to permit the petitioners to join
back on the post from where they were transferred.
Learned counsel for the respondents made vehement
submissions that the judgment in the case of Samleta (supra),
which laid down the requirement of compliance of the provisions
of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, even in cases where the employees
on the post are surplus, is sub-silento, inasmuch as the same has
not taken into consideration the definition of the transferred
employees, as provided under Rule 2 (iv) of the Rules of 2011. It
is submitted that the Rule defines the transferred employees as
those employees working on the post relating to the activities
transferred to the Panchayati Raj institution, which necessarily
means, the sanctioned post and as the petitioners are surplus
employees, they cannot claim the status as transferred employees
and consequential compliance of requirements of Rule 8 of the
Rules of 2011. The said aspect was not considered by the Court in
the case of Samleta (supra), either by the Single Judge or the
Division Bench and, therefore, the reliance placed in this regard is
of no avail to the petitioners.
(26 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
Further submissions have been made that the order passed
in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) also suffers from the same
aspect of sub-silento, as the Court did not consider the plea raised
by the respondents and has wrongly considered that consent has
been given by the Panchayati Raj Department to the transfers of
the surplus employees and, therefore, the judgment in the case of
Rekha Kumari (supra) also is of no avail to the petitioners.
It was submitted that even in the case of transfer from one
Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti or within the same
Panchayat Samiti also, even if the employees are not surplus, the
petitioners have no locus standi to question their transfer as in
terms of Rules 289 and 290 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
Rules, 1996 the grievance in this regard can only be raised by the
Panchayati Raj Institution and therefore, the plea raised by the
petitioners in this regard also has no substance and the petitions
deserve dismissal.
Reliance was placed on Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
Gurnam Kaur : (1989) 1 SCC 101.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rejoidner, raised
serious objections to the plea raised by the respondents claiming
the orders in the cases of Samleta (supra) and Rekha Kumari
(supra), as sub-silento. Submissions have been made that the
respondents having taken the advantage of the determination
made in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra), whereby the Division
Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati
Raj Department, allowed the appeals filed by the State; they now
cannot turn around and even claim the said judgment as sub-
silento. It was submitted that as the orders impugned dated
15.06.2022 were made subject to decision in SAW No.271/2022,
(27 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
which came to be decided alongwith the Bunch led by Rekha
Kumari's case, wherein the petitions have been decided by holding
post facto compliance of the provision of Rule 8 as sufficient, as in
the present cases, the compliance of Rule 8 has not been made,
the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.
Learned counsel made submissions that the plea raised
regarding petitioners being not transferred employees, is also
baseless, inasmuch as the entire activities of the Department to a
certain level, wherein the petitioners were working, came to be
transferred to the Panchayati Raj Department, and irrespective of
the fact as to whether the petitioners were working on the post
purportedly sanctioned or not, they became transferred employees
by all means and therefore, the submissions made in this regard,
has no substance. It was reiterated that the petitions be allowed
and the orders impugned be quashed and set aside.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The order impugned dated 15.06.2022, inter-alia, indicates
as under: -
"vkns'k
vketu dks lgt o lqyHk mipkj miyC/k djkus ,oa O;kid
tufgr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds
fuEukafdr uflZaxdehZ tks HkhyokM+k ftys ds fofHkUu fpfdRlk laLFkkuksa
esa Lohd`r inksa ls vf/kd dk;Zjr gksus ds dkj.k vf/k'ks"k gS] dks fjDr
inksa ij muds uke ds lEeq[k vafdr LFkkuksa ij rqjUr izHkko ls
lek;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS %&]
Ø- la- uke dkfeZd inuke orZeku inLFkkiu uohu lek;kstu
LFkku tgka ls LFkku
dkfeZd vf/ks'ks"k gS
8 jfoUnz dqekj Vsyj ulZ f}rh; ,,u,e izf'k{k.k Vªksek lsUVj]
dsUnz] HkhyokM+k lgkMk] HkhyokM+k
mDr vkns'k l{ke Lrj ls vuqeksfnr gSA
(28 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
mijksDr lHkh lek;kstu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB
tks/kiqj esa nk;j Mh-ch-,l-,-MCY;w- [email protected] ,oa ek- mPp U;k;ky;
t;iqj esa nk;j ,l-ch- flfoy fjV la[;k [email protected] ds vafre
fu.kZ;k/khu fd;s tkrs gSA
Sd/-
¼lqjs'k uoy½
funs'kd ¼vjktif=r½
fpfdRlk ,oa Lok- lsok;sa- ,oa vfr- funs'kd ¼iz'kklu½]
iapk;rh jkt ¼fpfdRlk½ foHkkx] jkt- t;iqj"
A perusal of above order would indicate that by indicating
that the petitioners are surplus, orders posting the petitioners
from one place to another were passed and made subject to the
decision in SAW No.271/2022. The aforesaid appeal (SAW
No.271/2022- State vs. Anju Bala) arose from the judgment in
Anju Bala vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.3299/2022
decided on 09.03.2022, wherein the Single Judge on coming to
the conclusion that the Division Bench in the case of Samleta
(supra), had specifically come to the conclusion that even in the
case of transfer of surplus employees, consent was required to be
obtained from the Panchayati Raj Department, allowed the writ
petitions. The Division Bench while allowing the SAW
No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided with Bunch led by
the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) and other connected matters,
inter-alia, observed as under:
"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.
(29 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
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
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 supplied)
(30 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
In the case of Samleta (supra), a Coordinate Bench inter-
alia, directed as under:
"2. As per sub-rule (iii) whilst the department
concerned i.e. the Medical and Health Department would
be entitled to transfer ANMs from one district to the other,
but since the employees become employees of Panchayati
Raj Institutions, this has to be with the consent of the
Panchayati Raj Department.
3. Concededly no such consent was taken. I note
that vide order dated 20.9.2017 it was directed that
joining of duties by the petitioner pursuant to impugned
transfer order dated 15.9.2017 at the place where she has
been transferred shall be subject to the decision of the
writ petition.
4. The respondents have not been able to show to
the Court as to why consent of the Panchayti Raj
Department is not warranted.
5. The petition is disposed of quashing the transfer
order dated 15.9.2017 qua the petitioner."
When the said judgment was appealed before the Division
Bench, the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the
submissions made including the submission that the surplus
employees would not be governed by the said provision, came to
the following conclusion:
"We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned
order as well as the material placed on record.
Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati
Raj (Transfer Activities) Rules, 2011 clearly postulates that
when a person is transferred from one District to another,
there is a prerequisite condition of obtaining prior consent
of Panchayati Raj Department. In the present case, the
respondent is an employee of the Panchayati Raj
Institution and she has been transferred from one district
to another. Admittedly, no consent as per Rule 8 of the
Rules of 2011 was obtained from the Panchayati Raj
Department and therefore, her transfer is bad and in
violation of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011.
Even in the cases of transfer of surplus employees,
consent has to be obtained from the Panchayati Raj
Department.
(31 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
In view of the above observations, we are not
inclined to interfere in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Consequently, the stay application is also
dismissed."
(emphasis supplied)
From the above, it is apparent that the Division Bench in the
case of Samleta (supra) specifically came to the conclusion that
even a surplus employee was governed by the provisions of Rule 8
of the Rules of 2011 and when relying on the said judgment in the
case of Samleta (supra), the judgment in the case of Anju Bala
was delivered by the Single Judge, in appeal preferred against the
judgment in the case of Anju Bala, which was decided in the
Bunch led by the case of Rekha Kumari (supra), the Division
Bench, as quoted hereinbefore, specifically came to the conclusion
that the proposal was moved by the State granting ex post facto
sanction validating the transfer orders of the surplus/transferred
employees of the Panchayati Raj Department, a lawful post facto
sanction as per the requirement of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 to
validate the question transfer orders was given by the Panchayti
Raj Department and the action so taken, was in compliance of the
view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Mool Shanker
(supra) and the requirement of consent of Panchayati Raj
Department, for effecting transfer of the transferred employees of
the Panchayati Raj Department, has been satisfied and
consequently allowed the appeals.
The above determination made by the Division Bench in the
case of Rekha Kumari (supra) is categorical requiring the
compliance of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 and
only on account of post facto consent granted by the Panchayati
(32 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
Raj Department, by reiterating the requirements of the compliance
of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, the orders of transfer of surplus
employees, were upheld by the Division Bench.
Faced with the judgment in the cases of Samleta (supra) and
Rekha Kumari (supra), subject to which the orders impugned were
passed, it is submitted that the said orders/judgments are sub-
silento decisions, as the same have failed to take into
consideration the definition of transferred employees as provided
in Rule 2 (iv) of the Rules of 2011.
It is submitted that the issue was specifically raised in the
case of Rekha Kumari (supra).
Though it is the specific case of the State that the issue/plea
was raised in the appeal in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra). A
bare look at the judgment in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra)
reveals that there is no whisper of the State having raised the said
issue before the Division Bench. Merely raising an issue in the
memo of appeal and thereafter not pressing the same during
arguments amounts to abandonment of the issue/plea. Having
failed to raise the issue before the Division Bench and only relying
on the post facto consent granted in term of judgment in the case
of Mool Shankar (supra) and as a similar post facto consent is
missing in the present cases, to again fall back on the same
argument, which apparently was not pressed/abandoned before
the Division Bench, by relying on plea of sub silento, the attempt
made cannot be accepted.
However, looking to the vehemence on part of the counsel
for the State with which the Division Bench judgments in the case
of Semleta (supra), Mool Shankar (supra) and Rekha Kumari
(supra) irrespective of the fact whether the issue in the form as
(33 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
now being raised was raised earlier or raised and not pressed,
have been labelled as having been passed in sub silento, the issue
raised in the present form is being decided.
The relevant provisions of the Rules, inter-alia, reads as
under:
"2. Interpretation- (1) In these rules, unless the subject
or the context otherwise requires: -
(i) xxx
(ii) xxx
(iii) "Transferred Activities" means activities, schemes,
programmes, mission of Central or State Government entrusted
to Panchayati Raj Institutions time to time.
(iv) "Transferred Employees" means employees working
on the post relating to activities transferred to the Panchayati
Raj Institutions.
8. Transfer. - Transfer of such transferred employees shall
be made under the transfer policy and directions issued by the
State Government from time to time, by: -
(i) the Administration and Establishment Committee of
the Panchayat Samiti concerned within the same Panchayat
Samiti.
(ii) the District Establishment Committee of the Zila
Parishad concerned from one Panchayat Samiti to another
Panchayat Samiti within the same District.
(iii) the department Concerned from one district to
another district with the consent of the Panchayati Raj
Department."
It would be relevant to notice that on account of 73 rd
Amendment to the Constitution of India, the State passed various
orders to ensure transfer of various activities in terms of 11 th
Schedule of the Constitution to the Panchayati Raj Institutions.
The relevant foundational document in this regard being order
dated 02.10.2010 (Annex.7), wherein the activities from Medical,
Health and Family Welfare Department to the Panchayati Raj
Institutions were transferred. The relevant part whereof reads as
under: -
(34 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
"fo"k;@dk;Zdykiksa dk gLrkUrj.k
iapk;rh jkt foHkkx ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF;
foHkkx ds v/khu lapkfyr lHkh jk"Vªh; dk;ZØe] xfrfof/k;ka
foHkkx }kjk tkjh fd;s tkus okys [email protected]@lkef;d
fu.kZ;ksa vkSj fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds v/;/khu jgrs gq, lacaf/kr iapk;r
jkt laLFkku }kjk fu"[email protected]Ø;kUo;u fd;k tkosxkA
fofHkUu dk;Zdykiksa ds rgr vkoafVr HkkSfrd ,oa foRrh;
y{;ksa dh izkfIr lqfuf'pr djus dk nkf;Ro iapk;rh jkt laLFkkuksa
dk gksxkA
fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds lanHkZ esa xzkeh.k {ks= esa lHkh
midsUnz ,MiksLV] vixzsMsM lc lsUVj ,oa izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz
e; LVkQ iapk;r lfefr ds v/khu fd;s tkrs gSA
ftyk Lrj
1- ftyk Lrjh; eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF;
vf/[email protected] eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh ¼ifjokj
dY;k.k½@mi eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/[email protected] ¼ifjokj
dY;[email protected];½@ftyk iztuu ,oa f'k'kq LokLF; vf/[email protected]
{k; jksx vf/kdkjh ,oa muds dk;kZy; ds vU; vf/kdkjh ,oa
deZpkjh ftyk ifj"kn ds v/khu fd;k tkrk gSA
iapk;r lfefr Lrj
1- CykWd eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ,oa CykWd Lrj ij dk;Zjr
lHkh deZpkjh rFkk izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz ij dk;Zjr fpfdRlk
vf/kdkjh ,oa vU; deZpkjh iapk;r lfefr ds v/khu dk;Z lEiUu
djsaxsA
xzke iapk;r Lrj
1- mi LokLF; dsUnz ij dk;Zjr ,-,u-,e-] th-,u-,e-] iq:"k
LokLF; dk;ZdRrkZ viuk dk;Z xzke iapk;r ds v/khu dk;Z djsaxsA "
A perusal of the above would reveal that the entire staff,
which was working at the relevant time at various district,
Panchayati Samiti and Gram Panchayat level, was placed under
the Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayat. No
caveat/exception regarding any of the employees working at three
levels was made.
Whereafter, for regulating the transferred activities, Rules of
2011 were notified, which inter-alia, dealt with control of
transferred employees, conduct of business, sanctions,
responsibility and funds pertaining to the transferred activities.
The definition of the transferred activities and transferred
employees, as noticed hereinbefore are explicit, as the Rules of
2011 came after the activities stood transferred inter-alia through
the order dated 02.10.2010, all the activities, schemes,
(35 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
programmes etc. entrusted to the Panchayati Raj Institutions from
time to time were defined as 'transferred activities' and without
any restriction, it was provided that the employees working on the
posts relating to activities transferred to Panchayati Raj
Institutions, would be 'transferred employees'. Once the specified
activities under the Medical and Health Department were
transferred to Panchayati Raj Institutions, as a necessary
corollary, those working at the transferred activities at various
level/in relation to transferred activities, came under the authority
of the Panchayati Raj Institutions.
The indication made in the definition regarding the
employees working on the post relating to the activities
transferred to the Panchayati Raj Institutions, the emphasis
essentially is with regard to those working in relation to the
activities transferred and not, as to whether the posts in question
were sanctioned or on account of the nature of the transferred
activities, they were working beyond the sanctioned posts.
Apparently, if the intention of the Rule making authority was to
bring only those working on the sanctioned posts within the
purview of the transferred employees, the Rules would have
clearly indicated so and also provided for treatment of those who
were not working on the sanctioned posts, absence of which
aspect is not without reason, as the words 'working on the posts
relating to activities transferred' have not been qualified by
'sanctioned posts' and therefore, the definition would take within
its sweep, both those working on the sanctioned posts and/or the
surplus employees.
(36 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
The plea raised, seeking to confine the definition of
transferred employees to only those who are working on
sanctioned posts, also cannot be countenanced, for the simple
reason that the same would lead to undesired consequences, as
would be evident from the facts of the present case, wherein
petitioner- Ravindra Kumar Tailor, was posted as Nurse Grade-II
at C.H.C., Devli Tonk, which admittedly was a sanctioned post and
therefore, the petitioner was governed by the Rules of 2011,
however, he was transferred on 03.12.2015 from C.H.C., Devli,
Tonk to ANM Training Centre, Bhilwara under the working
arrangement, which was followed by another order dated
31.12.2020 whereby he was posted at the said ANM Training
Centre against the post of PHN. Whereafter, by order dated
15.06.2022 by indicating him surplus, he has been transferred.
If the plea raised by the respondents is accepted, the
petitioner who till 03.12.2015 was governed by the Rules of 2011,
at the instance of the respondents, by way of posting him against
the post/under working arrangement, he was taken out of the
purview of the definition of transferred employees/Rules, which
status continued till passing of the order dated 15.06.2022, when
again he would be within the purview of the definition. The plea as
raised would make the status of the employees as floating i.e.
they would be termed as 'transferred employees' and would be
governed by the Rules of 2011 one day and on the next day, by
passing orders to post them against the post/working
arrangement, they would be taken out of purview of the Rules of
2011, which position cannot be accepted. The only parameter for
examining the applicability of the provisions of the Rules
(37 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
essentially is that the employee(s) must be performing his/her
duties in relation to transferred activities only.
As such, the attempt made on the part of the respondents to
confine the definition of transferred employees to only those
working on sanctioned posts/taking the surplus out of said
definition only for the purpose of getting out of the compliance of
the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 cannot be
appreciated. It is not the case of the respondents that all those
purportedly surplus, their salary also is being drawn from a post,
which is not part of the transferred activities/in respondents' own
terms 'sanctioned post' in the transferred activities and therefore
also, the plea raised is totally baseless.
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.
(38 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
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 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.
(39 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
Besides the above, once the Rules of 2011 for the purpose of
dealing with the transferred activities/transferred employees have
been framed, which are specific to the employees like the
petitioners, the general Rules of 1996 would have no application.
A truly fantastic plea taken by the respondents, that the
petitioners have no locus standi to question their transfers,
inasmuch as the locus, if any, against the transfer is that of
Panchayati Raj Department, has been noticed only to be rejected,
inasmuch as if any violation of Rules takes place, which pertains
to transfer of the transferred employee, the consequence has to
be suffered by the employee concerned and therefore, in case he
is aggrieved, he has the locus to question the order passed in
violation of the provisions of Rules and/or any other grounds
available under the law.
In view of above discussion, it is apparent that the
petitioners, who are alleged as surplus employees, would continue
to be governed as transferred employees and as a consequence,
the compliance of the provision of Rule 8 qua such employees, is
necessary/sine qua non and the orders passed in violation of the
said provisions, cannot be sustained.
Further, insofar as cases of petitioners, who are not surplus
are concerned, their cases would require compliance of provisions
of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011.
It may be observed that the object of transferring surplus
employees to places where the posts are lying vacant, may be
laudable and in fact, in the first instance the employees more than
the surplus strength should not have been posted, the compliance
of applicable provisions cannot be given a go bye.
(40 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
Consequently, in cases of inter-district transfers, in petitions
where the concerned Minister has accorded the consent, in view of
judgment in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra), such transfers
would be in consonance with the provisions of Rule 8 (iii) of the
Rules, however, as in cases, where even such consent is absent,
the orders impugned cannot be sustained. So far as transfers
within Panchayat Samiti and from one Panchayat Samiti to
another Panchayat Samiti within same district are concerned, the
said transfers can only be effected in terms of Clause (i) and (ii)
of the Rule 8 respectively and therefore, in the cases where the
orders have been passed by the State Government, even with
consent of the concerned Minister, the same are clearly in
violation and as such, the same also cannot be sustained.
The status of the present writ petitions, at a glance, is as
under: -
CWP No. Petitioner Date of Status as Transfer Consent of
order per order Inter/ Panchayati
impugned Intra Raj Deptt.
District
8828/2022 Ravindra Kumar Tailor 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
8849/2022 Ramesh Gurjar 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
8850/2022 Kalu Khatik 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
8855/2022 Ramswaroop Kaswan 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
8863/2022 Sunita Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8864/2022 Arun Kumar Purohit 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8865/2022 Anita Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8866/2022 Ravindra Meena 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
8871/2022 Kaushalya 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8876/2022 Hari Shanker Raigar 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
8887/2022 Phoola Meena 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
8888/2022 Shilpa Meena 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
8902/2022 Kavita Devi 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8904/2022 Sajjana Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8905/2022 Kulvindar Jeet Kaur 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8919/2022 Radha Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8933/2022 Maya Devi 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8941/2022 Satrupa 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
8972/2022 Bhanwar Singh Rathore 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
(41 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
9027/2022 Mukesh Ola 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
9079/2022 Manju 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
9101/2022 Krishna Jal 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
9114/2022 Saroj Devi 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
9116/2022 Sona 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
9133/2022 Bhanwari Choudhary 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
9368/2022 Ramjas Jat 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
9404/2022 Bhom Singh 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
9452/2022 Manju 15.06.22 & Surplus Inter No
30.06.22
9733/2022 Tulsa Mahavar 15.06.22 Surplus Intra -
9821/2022 Manju Sheela 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
10474/2022 Raman Lal Ahari 18.07.22 Not Inter Yes
surplus
10915/2022 Bhagwati 26.07.22 Not Intra Yes
surplus
11176/2022 Roshani Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
10776/2022 Dr. Pradeep Kumar 20.07.22 Not Inter No
surplus
11292/2022 Peena Bunkar 01.08.22 Not Inter Yes
surplus
11698/2022 Sangeeta Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
11710/2022 Smt. Sarla 15.06.22 & Surplus Inter No
20.06.22
11714/2022 Smt.Preetika Prajapat 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No
11813/2022 Dinesh Khatik 10.08.22 Not Inter Yes
surplus
11829/2022 Sampat Lal Khatik 10.08.22 Not Inter No
surplus
11972/2022 Asha Rajput 10.08.22 Not Inter Yes
Surplus
12283/2022 Sonal Ben Patel 01.08.22 Not Inter Yes
surplus
12337/2022 Rohit Kumar 01.08.22 Not Inter Yes
surplus
12522/2022 Sanwari 16.08.22 Not Intra Yes
surplus
12569/2022 Sunita Meena 13.08.22 Not Intra Yes
surplus
In view of above discussion, as the transfers are inter district
and consent of Minister has been indicated, the writ petitions No.
10474/2022, 11813/2022, 11292/2022, 11972/2022,
12283/2022 and 12337/2022 are dismissed.
Rest of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed
and the respective orders impugned are quashed and set aside;
as by way of interim order, it was directed that without prejudice
(42 of 42) [CW-8828/2022]
to the challenge in the present writ petitions, the petitioners may
join pursuant to order of transfer, the petitioners would be entitled
to join back at the place from where they have been transferred.
It is made clear that the respondents after compliance of the
provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, as discussed
hereinbefore, would be free to pass appropriate orders.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
