Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Poonam vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/015635]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18786/2022
Smt. Poonam D/o Shri Deva Ramji Rabari W/o Shri Jaggaram
Rebari, Aged About 22 Years, R/o. Rampura, District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, to Be Served Through The Director,
Medical And Health Services, Panchayati Raj (Medical)
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Health Services, Panchayati Raj (Medical) Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sirohi (Rajasthan).
4. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Pindwara, District Sirohi.
5. The Senior Medical Officer, Rajkiya Swasthya Kendra,
Sawroopganj, Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Richin Surana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
17/05/2023
Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.14964/2019 "Kiran Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors." decided on 15.01.2020, wherein this Hon'ble Court has held
as under:-
"25. The order of the State Government dated 16.06.2018,
if read carefully reveals that all the stipulations contained in
order dated16.06.2018 are contrary to express provisions
contained in Rule 8.
[2023/RJJD/015635] (2 of 3) [CW-18786/2022]
(i) Para (अ) requires the consent of parent Department
i.e. Medical & Health Department in cases of transfer
under Rule 8(i) and 8(ii);the same clearly falls foul to
Rule 8 (i) and 8 (ii);
(ii) (ब) seeks to ratify such transfers affected, that too
cannot be done - an act which is void ab-initio cannot be
ratified and that too by the authority which has usurped
the powers;(iii) and direction given in (स) in relation to
inter-district transfers.
26. The order dated 16.06.2018 at best be read or
construed to be a prior rather tacit approval of the
Panchayati Raj Department. But in the opinion of this
Court, even that is impermissible and unsustainable
because Rule 8(iii) postulates consent of Panchayati Raj
Department; whereas part (स) of the order goes on to
say that in case of inter-district transfers, parent
Department will not be required to take consent of
Panchayati Raj Department.
27. In considered opinion of this Court, stipulation
given in part (स) of the order does violence with what is
contained in para (iii) of Rule 8 and it is in direct conflict
with Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011.
28. The order dated 16.06.2018 issued by the Chief
Secretary of the State does not go along with Rule 8 of
the Rules of 2011 and thus, the same cannot be allowed
to endure. Though there is no specific challenge to said
order, but since it has been relied upon by the State as a
shield to protect the order of transfers, the Government
order dated 16.06.2018 is hereby quashed.
29. As a natural corollary, the impugned transfer
orders (dated 29.09.2019) issued by the Additional
Director (Administration), Medical & Health Department,
Rajasthan Jaipur are also quashed; writ petitions are
allowed.
30. It is informed that the petitioners involved in the
present bunch of writ petitions are protected by way of
interim order(s) passed by this Court, the interim
order(s) passed in these writ petitions, consequent to
petitions being allowed, are made absolute.
31. At the request of learned Additional Advocate
General, the orders of transfer dated 29.09.2019 shall
be treated to have been cancelled only qua these
petitioners or who are protected by interim orders
already passed. Whosoever has/have joined pursuant to
the transfer order dated 29.09.2019, at the new place of
[2023/RJJD/015635] (3 of 3) [CW-18786/2022]
positing, shall not be entitled for relief and they shall not
be disturbed.
32. Needless to observe that if State in administrative
exigencies wishes to transfer these petitioners, the same
be done, needless to say, strictly in accordance with
Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011.
33. Registry is directed to keep photostat copy of this
order in each file, mentioned in the Schedule.
34. All interlocutory applications, including stay
petitions stand disposed of."
For the self same reasons, the present writ petition is also
disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of Kiran Kumari (supra).
The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
13-SunilS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
