Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishan Lal Suthar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:14170) on 27 March, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:14170]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4494/2024
Kishan Lal Suthar S/o Shri Bhagwan Lal Suthar, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Dingarkiya Mahuda, Udaipur District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, (Land Record), Udaipur.
3. The Tehsildar, (Land Record), Tehsil Mavli, District
Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi for
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
27/03/2024
1. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 22.02.2024,
vide which petitioner has been transferred from Patwar Mandal
Thamla Tehsil Ghasa to Patwar Mandal Boyna Tehsil Mavli against
vacant position, he has filed the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that
impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the
transfer policy and Rule 9 and Rule 412 of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957. He submits that the
petitioner has been transferred before expiry of two years, which
is in contravention to the circular as issued by the State
Government, which provides that a Patwari cannot ordinarily be
transferred before a period of two years from one place of posting.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgments
rendered in Rajpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.
[2024:RJ-JD:14170] (2 of 3) [CW-4494/2024]
Civil Writ Petition No.544/2021, decided on 18.03.2021 and
Inder Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: reported in
(2007) 1 RLW (Raj.) 737.
4. Per contra, my attention has been drawn to a judgment
rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dal Chand Jat
Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3112/2024, decided on 05.03.2024. The relevant part of the
same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"5. So far as the ground of the order impugned being in
contravention to Rule 9 & Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957 is
concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Gopalram vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. : D.B. Spl. Appl.
Writ No.53/2020 (decided on 28.01.2020) in identical
circumstances and while analysing the said two provisions held as
under:-
"12. Coming to the contention of the appellant that the
transfer order issued by the District Collector is violative of
provisions of Rule 9 (ii) and Rule 412, a conjoint reading of
Rule 9 and Rule 412 indicates that a Patwari should not be
ordinarily transferred, but then, he can always be
transferred when considered necessary in the interest of
efficiency of work or to fill up vacancy created by long
leave, resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of the
Patwari. Suffice it to say that besides for administrative
exigency, a Patwari can be transferred even to fill up the
vacant post created on account of various contingencies
enumerated. Thus, on account of administrative exigency,
inter-alia to fill up the vacant posts, if number of
employees holding the post of Patwaris are transferred
within the District, in no manner, it can be said that the
order impugned passed by the District Collector without
recording the satisfaction regarding necessity in the
interest of efficiency of work, is violative of provisions of
Rule 9 (ii) and Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957. As a matter
of fact, the order impugned by itself reflects that the
transfers have been effected for administrative exigency to
fill up the vacant posts.
13. Admittedly, the transfer of a Patwari from one place
to another within the Sub-Division, District, Division or
State is regulated by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 which
nowhere restricts the transfer of a Patwari prior to
completion of a particular period of posting at a particular
place. The circular/instructions issued by the State
Government providing for transfer of Patwari after
completion of the tenure of two years, are in the nature of
guidelines not enforceable and cannot be construed in the
[2024:RJ-JD:14170] (3 of 3) [CW-4494/2024]
manner suggested so as to put absolute restriction on the
power to be exercised by the authorities enumerated under
Rule 9 to transfer a Patwari for administrative exigency or
other contingencies specified. In other words,
notwithstanding the instructions issued by the State
Government as aforesaid, the authority empowered can
transfer a Patwari at any time for administrative exigency
in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. It is a different
matter that even otherwise in absence of administrative
exigency, an employee holding the transferable post
cannot be frequently transferred by his employer at his
whims and fancy, but on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, in no manner, it can be inferred that the
appellant has been transferred without there being any
administrative exigency and it is not even the case of the
appellant that he has been subjected to frequent transfer."
6. Deciding on the touchstone of the ratio as laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopalram (supra), it is
clear that the petitioner has been transferred qua a vacant post.
Meaning thereby, it is totally in consonance with Rule 9 of the
Rules of 1957 whereby a Collector is authorised to transfer a
Patwari to fill up a vacancy.
7. In view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Gopalram
(supra), this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
order impugned. The present writ petition is hence, dismissed."
5. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. Also,
in the facts of the present case, both the judgments relied upon
by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable.
6. In view of the judgment passed in Dal Chand (supra)
rendered by following the ratio as laid down in the case of
Gopalram (supra), this Court does not find any ground to interfere
with the order impugned.
7. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
8. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
1387-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
