Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chetan Ram Rawal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:8874) on 13 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:8874]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4415/2025
Chetan Ram Rawal S/o Shri Chimana Ram, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o 304, Meghwalo Ka Bas, Sangariya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Deputy Commissioner
Cum Joint Secretary, Department Of Rural Welfare And
Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali, Rajasthan.
3. The Block Development Officer, Sumerpur, District Pali
(Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bharti for
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
13/02/2025
1. Grievance of the petitioner herein stems out of an order
dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.5) vide which he was transferred from
Gram Panchayat Sanderao, Panchayat Samiti Sumerpur to
Panchayat Samiti, Raipur. Assailed also is another order dated
22.01.2025 (Annex.6) whereby the petitioner has now been
posted at Gram Panchayat Gogra. Petitioner states that both
orders are bed in law as the same have passed without any
mandatory recommendation of District Establishment Committee
of the concerned Zila Parishad.
[2025:RJ-JD:8874] (2 of 3) [CW-4415/2025]
2. Upon a perusal of the case file, it transpires that the
petitioner was initially transferred vide an order dated 09.01.2025
(Annex.3). He challenged the same vide SBCWP No.1271/2025,
which was disposed of on 17.01.2025 in the following terms:-
"1. In view of the detailed order passed in S.B. Civil Writ
petition No.790/2025 : Udai Bhan Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., decided on 14.01.2025, the instant writ petitions are also
disposed of in same terms as the judgment ibid.
2. For detailed reasons, read judgment read therein.
3. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of."
3. However, before the aforesaid count order was passed, yet
another transfer order dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.5), impugned
herein, was passed without mentioning name of Gram Panchayat.
Thus, this order was also in conflict with the observation made in
the judgment of Udai Bhan, ibid read with Kera Ram Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.2909/2024, decided on
30.04.2024.
4. Having perhaps realized the mistake, corrective order dated
22.01.2025 (Annex.6) has now been passed whereby petitioner
has been transferred specifically mentioning the name of Gram
Panchayat, where he has to assume the duties. However, the
same has been passed by the Block Development Officer without
prior sanction of District Establishment Committee, a violation,
which if indeed committed, cannot be countenanced.
5. In fact, specific questions were framed qua the same
controversy in the judgment of Kera Ram (supra), and were duly
answered. The relevant extract, being apposite, is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
[2025:RJ-JD:8874] (3 of 3) [CW-4415/2025]
Questions:
"3. Can the Chief Executive Officer of a Zila Parishad
independently issue a transfer order within the Zila Parishad?
4. Are BDOs/VDOs authorized to independently transfer
Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti?
Answer
Questions 3 and 4 are addressed together. 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."
6. As it turns out, in the instant case Block Development Officer
has not taken any prior consent or consultation as held above. In
view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The impugned
orders dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.5) and 22.01.2025 (Annex.6)
are set aside with a direction to pass the corrective orders after
obtaining consent within a period of 30 days in case transfer is
required to be carried out in the interest of work exigency.
7. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
143-SP/skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
