Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1999 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2023
[2023/RJJP/002357]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2275/2023
Tara Chand S/o Shri Mooli Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o F-3,
A-38, Shanti Nagar, Near Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur. Present
Working As Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-
Srinagar, Ajmer (Raj.). Empl. Id- RJJJ201023007469
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Commissioner Cum Dy. Principal Secretary-Ii, Panchayati
Raj, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad- Ajmer, Ajmer.
4. Bhanwar Singh Charan, Block Development Officer
Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad- Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
10/02/2023
1. By way of instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated
31.01.2023 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate
Tribunal (hereinafter "the Tribunal"), dismissing his appeal and
affirming the transfer order of petitioner dated 13.01.2023
whereby he has been transferred as Block Development Officer
(BDO) from Panchayat Samiti, Srinagar (Ajmer) to Panchayat
Samiti, Baseri (Dholpur) on the vacant post.
2. Having heard counsel for petitioner and from perusal of
record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was posted in
Panchayat Samiti, Srinagar (Ajmer) vide order dated 30.09.2021
[2023/RJJP/002357] (2 of 2) [CW-2275/2023]
and thereafter, vide order impugned dated 13.01.2023, he has
been transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Baseri (Dholpur) and on the
vacant post, in place of petitioner, private respondent No.4 has
been transferred and has also joined.
3. The arguments raised by counsel for petitioner that the
transfer order is in violation to Section 89(8A) of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and stands bad in law due to indication
of Srinagar (Dungarpur) instead of Srinagar (Ajmer), has already
been dealt with by the Tribunal in its order dated 31.01.2023.
4. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, is not acting as an appellate Court.
The findings of the Tribunal that mentioning of Srinagar
(Dungarpur), instead of Srinagar (Ajmer) is merely an accidental
or typographical mistake and for that reason, the transfer order
may not be treated as passed without application of mind or
malafidely.
5. The judgment delivered in case of Naresh Koli Vs. State of
Rajasthan in SB Civil Writ Petition No.7277/2006 decided on
08.11.2006, on which counsel for petitioner is placing reliance
does not render any help to the petitioner, as facts of the said
judgment is not applying to the present case.
6. In view of aforesaid, the instant writ petition is devoid of
merits and as a consequence, the same is hereby dismissed.
7. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SACHIN/6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!