Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sita Ram Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan on 14 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:2352]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 790/2025
Uday Bhan S/o Shri Mani Ram, Aged About 51 Years, Resident
Of- Ward No. 13, Matore Road, Gheesa Ram Marg, Khairthal,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Additional Commissioner Cum Deputy Secretary (I),
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Raipur,
District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.929/2025, 898/2025, 932/2025,
918/205, 920/2025, 930/2025, 913/2025, 911/2025.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Patel
Mr. R.S. Choudhary
Mr. Mukesh Vyas
Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bharti for
Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
14/01/2025
1. Vide this common order, the aforesaid bunch is being
disposed of together as not only the facts involved are similar, but
even the issue therein is akin i.e. whether the impugned transfer
orders qua the petitioners militate against the applicable service
[2025:RJ-JD:2352] (2 of 4) [CW-790/2025]
Rule read with the judgment rendered in Kera Ram vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2909/2024.
2. Illustratively, for the sake of brevity, recitals are being taken
from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 790/2025. Petitioner is before this
Court assailing an order dated 09.01.2025 (Annex.-3) passed by
respondent No.2, vide which he has been transferred from
Panchayat Samiti Raipur to Panchayat Samiti Mandal.
3. Matter was heard yesterday when following order was
passed:-
"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.
Issue notice.
Liberty is granted to serve through nominated counsel./
Post it tomorrow i.e. on 14.01.2025. To be shown in
supplementary list."
4. On resumed hearing today, I have heard the rival
contentions and perused the case file along with the undisputed
official record of respondents appended therewith.
5. From the contents of the impugned order, it transpires that
petitioner has been transferred from Panchayat Samiti Raipur to
Panchayat Samiti Mandal without specifying as to which Gram
Panchayat in the Panchayat Samiti of Mandal he has to join. He is
thus to assume his charge on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari
without knowing which Gram Panchayat to serve for.
6. In this context, reference may be had to the guidelines laid
down in Kera Ram ibid, relevant extract thereof is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"QUESTIONS OF LAW:
13. The following questions of law are being formulated, which need
to be addressed to adjudicate on the merits of impugned orders:-
[2025:RJ-JD:2352] (3 of 4) [CW-790/2025]
1. Does the omission to mention a specific location of Gram
Panchayat for a Panchayat Samiti official's new duty station invalidate a
transfer order?
xxxxxxxxx
6. What is the legislative intent and scope of the State's power under
the non-obstante clause in Section 89(8)(A) of the Panchayat Raj Act,
1994, as amended by Act No. 23/1994 in Rajasthan?
xxxxxxxxx
30. In the light of discussion and analysis contained in preceding
paragraphs let us now revert to address the questions framed in para 13,
ibid:-
ANSWERS:-
**Question No. 1:**
The answer to the first question revolves around the principle of
administrative exigency. As highlighted in the judgment of Chander
Kanta by my esteemed colleague Justice Dinesh Mehta, the absence of a
specified transfer location indicates a lack of due consideration. If the
transferring authority is unaware of the required destination of the
transferred official, the motive for transfer becomes questionable. It
raises concerns about the possible misuse of administrative discretion or
punitive intentions. A transfer order rooted in genuine administrative
need would specify the new duty location, allowing the official to
promptly assume their duties. Therefore, the answer to the first question
is affirmative.
xxxxxxxxx
**Question No. 6:**
The last question concerns the legislative intent behind Section 89(8)(a)
of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. This section emphasizes
decentralization, delegating specific functions to Panchayats for
managing human resources. The rules ensure effective implementation of
this legislative intent. While the State Government holds overriding
authority for issuing transfer orders, this power should not undermine
the autonomy of Panchayati Raj Institutions.. Striking a balance is
essential to maintain the local bodies' autonomy and constitutional
integrity. Thus, while the State has absolute power to issue transfer
orders, this power should not be exercised in a manner that undermines
the faith in democratically elected Panchayati Raj Representatives."
7. In light of the aforesaid, the transfer orders impugned herein
are not sustainable as the respective Gram Panchayats on which
the petitioners are transferred as Gram Sevak have since not been
specified.
8. In the premise, writ petitions as numbered above are
allowed. The respective impugned transfer orders qua the
petitioners are set aside.
[2025:RJ-JD:2352] (4 of 4) [CW-790/2025]
9. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that in case,
work exigency so warrants, fresh orders may be passed in
accordance with Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,
1994 read with the judgment rendered in Kera Ram ibid.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
112-DhananjayS/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
