Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meesa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:11280) on 27 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:11280]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4405/2025
Meesa Ram S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Mugdara,
Tehsil Merta City, District-Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj., Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagour.
3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Riya Badi,
District Nagour.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
Mr. Nilesh Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
27/02/2025
1. Petitioner herein, is before this Court assailing an order
dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.-2) passed by respondent No.2, vide
which he has been transferred from Panchayat Samiti Riyabadi,
District Nagaur to Panchayat Samiti, Khivsar, District Nagaur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia contends that
not only there is gross violation of Section 89 of the Rajasthan
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 but also that of judgment rendered by
this Court in Kera Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.2909/2024 decided on 30.04.2024.
3. Whether or not Section 89 Sub-section 8(ii) of the Act of
1994 is mandatory or not is not res integra any more in view of
[2025:RJ-JD:11280] (2 of 2) [CW-4405/2025]
the catena of judgments rendered by this Court from time to time.
Illustratively, reference may be had to judgment rendered in
Mohan Lal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 13248/2009, decided on 15.12.2010 by this Court at
Jaipur Bench read with judgment rendered in Kera Ram Vs. The
State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2909/2024,
decided on 30.04.2024 by this Court particularly in the concluding
part thereof where transfer guidelines were framed. For ready
reference, guideline No.7 therein, reads as under:-
"(VII). Section 89(8)(ii) of the Act, 1994 mandates that a Zilla
Parishad can transfer an employee from a Panchayat Samiti only
after consulting the Pradhans or Pramukhs of the respective
Panchayat Samitis or Zilla Parishads involved in the transfer."
4. In view of the aforesaid, since it is a conceded position that
no consultation was sought from the Pradhan before passing the
transfer order of the petitioner from one Panchayat Samiti to the
other Panchayat Samiti, the impugned transfer order, qua the
petitioner, does not stand scrutiny of law and is accordingly set
aside.
5. In the premise, the instant writ petition is allowed.
6. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that in case,
work exigency so warrants, fresh order may be passed in
accordance with Section 89 of the Act of 1994 read with the
judgment rendered in Kera Ram ibid.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
126-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
