Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rupender Singh Aulakh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 April, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:18622] (1 of 4) [CW-7617/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7617/2025
Rupender Singh Aulakh S/o Jaswant Singh, Aged About 42
Years, Po Jalloki, 39 Rb, Padampur, District Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sriganganagar,
District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
3. Block Development Officer, Panchayati Samiti Padampur,
District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Patel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.R. Budania for applicant
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
16/04/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order
dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner has been
transferred from Gram Panchayat 39 RB Panchayat Samiti
Padampur to Gram Panchayat 37 GG Panchayat Samiti Padampur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised following three
grounds:-
(i) The order impugned has been passed reflecting the transfer
to be on work arrangement basis whereas law does not recognise
any such term of work arrangement. In support of his submission
counsel relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Dr. Sukumar Kashyap Vs. State of Rajasthan
[2025:RJ-JD:18622] (2 of 4) [CW-7617/2025]
& Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7916/2021 (decided on
16.08.2021).
(ii) The order impugned was passed during the ban period i.e.
during the period when there was a complete ban by State
Government on transfers of Panchayat employees. Counsel
submits that before passing of the order impugned, no permission
of the State Government/Chief Minister was taken whereas as per
the Circular/order of the Government, even if any transfer order
was required to be passed as if required to be passed on urgent
basis, permission of the State Government/Chief Minister was
essential. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohan
Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; (decided on 20.07.2007).
(iii) The order impugned has been passed by the Development
Officer whereas as per the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred
Activities) Rules, 2011 it is only the District Establishment
Committee which is competent to transfer employees of Panchayat
Samiti. In support of his submission counsel relied upon the
judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kera Ram Vs.
The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Writ Petition
No.2909/2024 (decided on 30.04.2024).
3. An application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC has been filed on
behalf of the concerned Gram Panchayat through its Administrator
for impleadment in the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
petitioner is posted at present place since years and as per office
order dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure-A/2) of the State Government,
no employee of a Panchayat Samiti can be posted at his place of
residence. He submits that admittedly, the petitioner is a
[2025:RJ-JD:18622] (3 of 4) [CW-7617/2025]
permanent resident of the Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore,
the transfer order has rightly been passed by the Development
Officer.
5. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
6. In Kera Ram(supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
while dealing with the issue whether a BDO/VDO is authorized to
independently transfer Panchayat officials within the Panchayat
Samiti, observed and held as under:-
"The CEO/Addl. CEO (DEO & BDO) can issue orders only
under State Government's instructions, as per Rule 289
of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Generally,
the power to transfer lies with the Panchayat Samiti, Zila
Parishad, or the State Government. When there is
disagreement between these bodies and the State, the
power is delegated to the CEO/BDO/Vikas Adhikari to
execute State Government instructions. But
BDOs/VDOs are not authorized independently to
transfer Panchayat Officials within the Panchayat
Samiti. Further, BDOs/VDOs are not authorized to
independently order an appointment by transfer of
Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti without
consulting the Pradhans or Pramukhs of the involved
Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad. Thus, the answer to
questions 3 and 4 is negative."
7. In view of the above ratio to the effect that BDO/VDO is not
authorized independently to transfer Panchayat officials within the
Panchayat Samiti, the order impugned passed by the BDO being
not passed by a competent authority, cannot be maintained.
8. Further, evidently the order impugned reflects the same to
be passed for work arrangement basis and as observed in Dr.
Sukumar Kashyap(supra), posting on work arrangement basis,
though not known (Downloaded
to law, oncan be at
25/04/2025 sparingly
11:20:17 PM) made to meet out
[2025:RJ-JD:18622] (4 of 4) [CW-7617/2025]
sudden emergent situation/exigency or additional work. The Court
therein further held that the posting on work arrangement basis
can be resorted to only as an exceptional case and that too, for a
very limited period. Herein, the order impugned does not reflect
that the same has been passed because of any sudden emergent
situation/exigency or any additional work. The order impugned on
that count too, deserves interference.
9. In view of the above observations, the order impugned being
bad in the eyes of law, is hereby quashed and set aside to the
extent of present petitioner.
10. The application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for impleadment
is also dismissed for the reason that the order impugned being
held to be bad on the aforesaid grounds, no cause to implead the
Gram Panchayat survives.
11. The writ petition is hence, allowed.
12. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
10-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
