Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nathu Lal Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:5950) on 30 January, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:5950]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2628/2025
Nathu Lal Prajapat, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Prajapat
Mohalla, Bhabrana, Tehsil Jhallara, District Salumber, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary And Commissioner, Panchayati Raj
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajastha.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Salumber, District
Salumber, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. IR Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
30/01/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the
order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the
case of Kana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other
connected matters in SBCWP No.924/2025 while submitting that
the issue involved in the present writ petition is having similar
facts.
2. Petitioner is before this Court assailing his transfer order
alleging that the same is in violation of Section 89 of the
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as well as judgment rendered
[2025:RJ-JD:5950] (2 of 4) [CW-2628/2025]
by this Court in Kera Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.2909/2024.
3. Having heard the rival contentions, it is borne out that the
case of the petitioner 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
[2025:RJ-JD:5950] (3 of 4) [CW-2628/2025]
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."
4. The name of Gram Panchayat where the petitioner is
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 petition as numbered above is allowed.
The respective impugned transfer order qua the petitioner is set
aside.
6. However, liberty is granted to pass fresh orders by specifying
the name of the Gram Panchayat where the incumbent is
supposed to join after transfer in case, work exigency so warrants,
[2025:RJ-JD:5950] (4 of 4) [CW-2628/2025]
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.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
204-ajayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
