Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:4906]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1518/2025
Girraj Gurjar S/o Balu Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bagheri
Kalan, Dist. Alwar, Raj. Post Of Constable Belt No. 202.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Administrative Secretary,
Through Chief Department Of Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.
4. The Superntendent Of Police, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1521/2025
Chandar Sain Jayani S/o Nathu Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Ward No. 6, 2 Js N Dhani, 1 Knn, Phephana, Dist.
Hanumangarh, Raj. Post Of Constable Belt No. 583.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Administrative Secretary,
Through Chief Department Of Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range,
Udaipur.
4. The Superntendent Of Police, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1546/2025
Prakash S/o Urja Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Iyasani, Dist.
Nagaur, Raj. Post Of Constable Belt No. 185.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Administrative Secretary,
Through Chief Department Of Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Headquarter), Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
[2025:RJ-JD:4906] (2 of 4) [CW-1518/2025]
Order (Oral)
24/01/2025
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.
2. Illustratively, for the sake of brevity, recitals are being taken
from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1518/2025. Petitioner, serving as
a constable in Rajasthan Police, is before this Court assailing an
order dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.-2), which he has been
transferred from Chittorgarh to Banswara.
2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are
as follows:-
2.1 The petitioner was appointed at the post of Constable (GD)
27.05.2013. Subsequently, vide an order dated 15.01.2025, he
has been transferred from Chittorgarh to Banswara i.e. from one
District to another.
2.2 The seniority on the post of Constable is maintained on
district level basis as per Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Police
Subordinate Rules, 1989 and if the petitioner is transferred out of
district, it will adversely affect his seniority. Furthermore, the
controversy in the instant case has already been put to rest by a
Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Subhash Chandra vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Being aggrieved by the impugned
transfer order dated 15.01.2025, petitioner has preferred the
instant writ petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and perused the case file.
[2025:RJ-JD:4906] (3 of 4) [CW-1518/2025]
4. First and foremost, reference may be had to judgment
rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Subhash
Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.10353/2021. Relevant of which, is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"(33) This Court has consistently held that inter-district transfers of
Constables and Head-Constables and inter-range transfers of ASI's
are contrary to Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989. It will not be out of place
to reproduce adjudication made by this Court in the case of Smt.
Premlata (supra), which reads thus:-
"A perusal of the said Rules shows that the persons
mentioned in column 5 of Sections I, II and IV of the
Schedule-I holding substantive rank shall be eligible in
the case of Constables on District/Unit, Battalion basis,
which means that the concerned Constable shall be
promoted as and when his/her turn comes in the district
to which he/she has been transferred.
Mr. Jai Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Traffic,
Bikaner is present in the Court and confirms the said fact.
Thus, this Court fails to understand as to how the
petitioner does not stand to suffer, in case she is
transferred from Bikaner to Jhunjhunu because, even
though, the seniority is maintained from the date of the
appointment, she will be promoted only in case the person
senior to her in Jhunjhunu has been promoted though his
initial appointment is after the date of the initial
appointment of the present petitioner. Thus, the transfer
order which places the petitioner in disadvantage vis-a-
vis for the purpose of promotion cannot be sustained."
(34) Coordinate Benches of this Court have followed the aforesaid
view in the cases of Yadram (supra) and Harendra(supra).
(35) As the appointing authority of Constable/Head-Constable is
the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned, consequent to
their transfer under consideration, the Constables and Head-
Constables will be required to receive instructions/directions from the
Superintendent of Police of the district in which they have been
transferred and as a natural corollary of their transfer, their
appointing authority, so also the disciplinary authority will be
changed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(38) This Court fails to comprehend that if any disciplinary action
is to be taken against a transferred Constable/Head-Constable, then,
who will be the competent authority to initiate the enquiry? Subhash
Chandra (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10353/2021), being
a Constable (General Duty), has been transferred from Jaisalmer to
G.R.P., Ajmer; his disciplinary authority prior to the impugned
transfer was Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer. May be, as per the
[2025:RJ-JD:4906] (4 of 4) [CW-1518/2025]
stand of the respondents, his seniority will remain as per his seniority
in Jaisalmer, but what would happen if the persons junior to him
posted in Jaisalmer are promoted, whereas no promotional avenues
are available in G.R.P., Ajmer. Will he still be given promotion?
(39) That apart, if due to any delinquency, a disciplinary action is
proposed to be taken against the said Constable (Subhash Chandra),
whether the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer will be the competent
authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings or the
Superintendent of Police at Ajmer?
(40) There are many more related or ancillary questions attached
with such transfer, such as; at which place the service record of the
transferred employees will be kept, who will deal with leave
applications etc. of the transferred Constable/Head-Constables and
A.S.Is? The Rules of 1989 are silent in this regard. The hiatus, if any,
cannot be filled by the administrative orders."
5. I am in respectful agreement with the above views
expressed by the learned Single Judge. In the case in hand, not
only there is a blatant violation of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Police
Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, but even otherwise, the
judgment (which has attained finality) rendered in Subhash
Chandra (supra) is directly applicable herein.
6. In light thereof, I see no reason why the benefit of the same
be not accorded to the petitioners.
7. In the premise, the instant writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned transfer orders dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.-2) changing
the District of the petitioners is therefore set aside, being not
sustainable in law.
8. However, respondents are at liberty to pass fresh orders in
compliance with applicable Rules within the same District where
the petitioners / constables are currently serving.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
62, 64, 80-DhananjayS/Rmathur-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
