Judgment Mehta, J.-By this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the appellant has challenged the order dt. Oct. 28. 1983 of the learned single Judge passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 727 of 1983.

2. A few facts leading to filing of this may be noticed in brief : The petitioner appellant challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution the legality of the orders Ext. 3, 4 and 5.Exhibit 3 is the order dt. Jan. 22. 1983 passed by the District Establishment Committee, Barmer whereby the Block Development Officer. Shiv was directed to issue transfer orders of the petitioner from Panchayat Samiti. Bavetu to pan-chayat Samiti, Shiv. In compliance of the order Exhibit 3, the Block Development Officer. Shiv passed the order (Exhibit 5) dt. Feb. 22, 1983 transferring the petitioner from Panchayat Samiti Bavetu to Panchavat Samiti. Shiv. Exhibit 4 is the order dt Mar. 4, 1983 issued by the Block Development Officer. Bavetu whereby the petitioner was relieved with immediate effect for submitting his joining report at Panchayat Samiti, Shiv. By the impugned order dt. Oct. 28, 1983, the learned single Judge held that the Collector and Zila Pramukh were competent to pass the transfer order and that there is no illegality in the transfer of the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the order under appeal, the appellant has preferred this appeal for quashing the orders Ehibits. 3. 4 and 5.

3. We have heard Mr. M. R. Sinchvi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Niyazudeen Kham, learned Additional Government Advocate.

4. It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the transfer orders have been passed in accordance with the decision taken by the Vigilance Committee in its meeting and that the transferring authority has not applied its mind, as such, the transfer orders should be set aside. According to the learned Counsel. Vigilance Committee is having no legal entity and as such, it cannot decide the transfer mutters. He has invited my attention to Section 86 (9) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which reads as under:-“86 (9). Appointments by promotion or transfer of incumbents holding posts encadred in the Service shall be governed by rules made in this behalf and may be ordered by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad, as the case may be, from amongst persons entered in district-wise lists prepared in the prescribed manner-

.(a) in the case of promotions or transfers within the same district by the District Establishment Committee constituted under Section 88, and

.(b) in the case of other transfers, by the Selection Commission constituted under Sub-section (6) on the recommendation of the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Pan-shad under whose administrative control they are for the time being and after consulting the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad as the case may be under whose administrative control they are proposed to be transferred.”

5. On the other hand. Mr. Nivazudeen Khan, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently supported the order under appeal and has submitted that the Vigilance Committee had not transferred the petitioner but in fact, the District Establishment Committee has passed the necessary orders which is evident from Exhibit 3. He has invited our attention to decision of Smt. Pushpa Bhandari vs. Smt. Lalita Mathur (Civil Revision Petition No. 235 of 1982. decided on July 29, 1982).

6. In Smt. Pushpa Bhandari’s case (Supra) Smt. Pushpa Bhandari was holding the Post of Acting Head Mistress in Bal Mandir School. Jodhpur. The Vigilance Committee considered the matter and found that continuation of Smt. Pushpa Bhandari as Acting Head Mistress is not in the interest of the Institution and directed that Smt. Shanti Chandravanshi should be appointed as Head Mistress. On the directions of the Vigilance Committee, the District Education Officer (Female) passed the order that Smt. P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document