Mamta W/O Sh. Kapur Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5152 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:24506-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 65/2023

Mamta W/o Sh. Kapur Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Paneshinghpura, Tehsil Surajgarh District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       State     Of    Rajasthan,          Through          Principal   Secretary,
         Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government
         Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Director (Non-Gazettee), Medical And Health Services,
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Zone, Jaipur
         (Raj.)
4.       Chief, Medical And Health Officer, Jhunjhunu.
5.       Divisional     Chief      Medical       Officer,      Nawalgarh    District
         Jhunjhunu.
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dayaram Bhaskar on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya For Respondent(s) : Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG with Mr. Prakhar Gupta Mr. Akhil Simlote for the applicant

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

21/09/2023 (ORAL):

D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.1/2023:

1. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the

present application in the light of the subsequent developments

which have taken place.

2. Prayer is allowed.

[2023:RJ-JP:24506-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-65/2023]

3. The application is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, as

prayed for.

D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.65/2023:

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge dated 09.01.2023, whereby the writ petition

preferred by the appellant challenging her transfer order from the

office of BCMO, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu to CHC, Balesar,

District Jodhpur vide order dated 21.11.2022, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the

impugned order of transfer is in violation of Rule 8(iii) of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transfer Activities) Rules, 2011 (for

short 'the Rules of 2011), which mandates consent of Panchayati

Raj Department, which consent in the present case is missing. He

on this basis contends that the transfer order being in violation of

the statutory rules cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, Principal Seat at

Jodhpur passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.284/2022-

State of Rajasthan Vs. Rekha Kumari along with other

connected appeals, decided on 17.08.2022. This issue was

considered with reference to Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011. The

appeals preferred by the State have been allowed. It has been

held therein that the requirement of consent of the Panchayati Raj

Department for effecting transfers of the transferred employees of

the Panchayati Raj Department has been satisfied. The reliance

has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar &

Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 532. He on this basis contends

[2023:RJ-JP:24506-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-65/2023]

that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in accordance

with law and does not call for any interference.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties and have gone through the Division Bench

judgment of this Court in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) as

also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Shilpi Bose (supra), wherein it has been held as under:-

"In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights."

5. In the light of the fact that the requirement of consent of the

Panchayati Raj Department as required stands fulfilled, the

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be

accepted.

6. In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit stands

dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

KAMLESH KUMAR /42

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)