Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Manish Jain - PETITIONER
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & others - RESPONDENTS
WP(S) No.3615 of 2014
Decided on: 25-7-2014
Transfer Order - Jurisdiction of Collector to Transfer Employee of Janpad Panchayat - The court held that the transfer order issued by the Collector concerning the petitioner, an employee of Janpad Panchayat, was without jurisdiction as it violated Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service Rules, 1999, and quashed the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, challenged the transfer order issued by the Collector, Bemetara, transferring him to Janpad Panchayat, Saja.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order was without jurisdiction as it violated Rule 27 of the Rules, 1999, and quashed the order, allowing the competent authority to pass a fresh order considering administrative exigency.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Collector to Transfer Employee of Janpad Panchayat
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer policy issued by the Government, without statutory backing, cannot override the provisions of any statutory provision, and in this case, the transfer order violated Rule 27 of the Rules, 1999.
Final Decision: The impugned transfer order concerning the petitioner was quashed, and the competent authority was given the liberty to pass a fresh order considering administrative exigency.
1. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh, is aggrieved by the impugned transfer order issued by the Collector, Bemetara whereby he has been transferred in the same capacity to Janpad Panchayat, Saja.
2. Referring to Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the CEO, Zila Panchayat is the competent authority to pass the transfer order, therefore, in view of the Rules, the Collector of the district has no jurisdiction or authority to transfer an employee of Janpad Panchayat.
3. Learned State counsel would refer to clause 1 (i) of the transfer policy dated 5.6.2014 wherein it is provided that transfer of class-3 (non-executive) employees at the district level shall be made by the Collector on the recommendation/approval of Minister In-Charge of the district. Therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with transfer policy.
4. It is settled law that the transfer policy issued by the Government has no statutory backing and it is mere guidelines. (See Poonam Verma and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2007) 13 SCC 154 Similarly, it is equally settled that provisions of any policy or guidelines or circular cannot override the provisions of any statutory provision, be it in the form of an Act of legislature or subordinate legislation.
5. For the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned transfer order issued by the Collector of the district concerning the petitioner, who is employee of Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, is without jurisdiction, as the same has been passed in violation of Rule 27of the Rules, 1999.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order concerning the petitioner is quashed. However, the competent authority would be at liberty to pass fresh order keeping in view the administrative exigency.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
