Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kana Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:3508]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 924/2025
Kana Ram S/o Shri Thakar Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 11
Ramdev Colony, Sri Ganganagar 5E (Rural) Sri Ganganagar
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary-I,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sri Ganganagar.
4. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar,
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1013/2025,1034/2025, 1042/2025,
1073/2025, 1075/2025, 1102/2025, 1112/2025, 1120/2025,
1185/2025, 1190/2025, 1229/2025, 1236/2025, 1245/2025,
1250/2025, 1253/2025, 1258/2025, 1261/2025, 1263/2025
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Mr. Manish Patel,
Mr. Devendra Sanwalot, Mr. Mukesh
Rajpurohit, Mr. K.R. Saharan,
Mr. Pawan Singh, Mr. VLS Rajpurohit,
Mr. Jog Singh Bhati and Mr. O.P.
Sangwa.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Pawan Bharti.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
20/01/2025
1. Vide this common order the aforesaid Bunch is being
disposed of together as similar facts and issues are involved
therein.
2. Petitioners are before this Court assailing their respective
transfer orders alleging that the same are in violation of Section
89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as well as judgment
rendered by this Court in Kera Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2909/2024.
[2025:RJ-JD:3508] (2 of 3) [CW-924/2025]
3. Having heard the rival contentions, it is borne out that the
case of the petitioners is squarely covered by Kera Ram (supra)
and in fact, in some what similar circumstances, another Bunch of
petitions titled Udai Bhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 790/2025, was disposed of in the following
terms :-
"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:-
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
[2025:RJ-JD:3508] (3 of 3) [CW-924/2025]
**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."
4. The name of Gram Panchayat where the petitioners are
supposed to join has not been mentioned which shows a complete
lack of application of mind to determine administrative exigency
which is stated to be the reason of transfer.
5. In the premise, writ petitions as numbered above are
allowed. The respective impugned transfer orders qua the
petitioners are set aside.
6. However, liberty is granted to pass fresh orders by specifying
the name of the Gram Panchayat where the incumbents are
supposed to join after transfer in case, work exigency so warrants,
in accordance with Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,
1994 read with the judgment rendered in Kera Ram ibid.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
Jitender /- Sumit/-
19, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 49, 52,
53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 66 & 67
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
