RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
G.M.Lodha, J.
Ram Pratap - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B.C.W. P No. 1418 of 1980.
Decided On : 3-12-1980
The Rajasthan High Court held that Section 86(9A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, which gives the State Government the power to transfer employees of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, is ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision is an excessive delegation of legislative power and violates the principle of separation of powers. The Court also held that the provision is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
Thirty writ petitions were filed by Primary School Teachers working in various Panchayat Samitis of Rajasthan challenging the orders of their transfer by the State Government. The petitioners argued that the transfer orders were not speaking orders, were arbitrary, and were issued without any material to form an opinion. The State Government contended that the ultimate responsibility of development work in all areas administered by the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads is of the State Government and that the power of transfer has been conferred on the State Government to ensure efficient administration.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that a transfer order need not be a speaking order and that the requirement for a speaking order cannot be insisted upon in the case of an order of transfer simpliciter, as contemplated by section 86 sub-section (9-A) of the Act. The Court also held that the State Government has not been able to place on record any material on the basis of which, the authority conferred by sec. 86(9-A) exercised the powers of transfer in the present cases. The Court further held that Section 86(9A) of the Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional as it is an excessive delegation of legislative power, violates the principle of separation of powers, and is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 86(9A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, is ultra vires and unconstitutional? 2. Whether the transfer orders issued by the State Government are valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 86(9A) of the Act is ultra vires and unconstitutional as it is an excessive delegation of legislative power, violates the principle of separation of powers, and is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the transfer orders issued by the State Government are invalid as they were issued under Section 86(9A) which has been held to be ultra vires.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned transfer orders, and declared Section 86(9A) of the Act to be ultra vires and unconstitutional.
"29. Transfer outside the District:- The name of the employee desiring transfer or desired to be transferred from one district to another shall be communicated to the Commission by the Panchayat Samitis or the Zila Parishads, as the case may be. The Commission shall thereupon enter these names in a district wise list.
(2) Appointment by transfer of such an employee shall be made by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad concerned on the recommendation of the Commission which shall consult the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad, as the case may be, under whose administrative control they are proposed to be transferred.
(3) ....
(4) .... ...... .....
It would be seen that the Commission is required to maintain a list in consultation of the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad as the case may be under whose administrative control the employee sought to be transferred is working and also under whose administrative control he is sought lo be transferred, and further both are required to be consulted for transfer in spite of the above detailed procedure contained in Rule 29, the State Government has retained to itself the powers of transfer of any member of the service or one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti where within the same State or outside it, by enactment of section 86 (9A). Ibis sub-section further gives powers to the State Government to stay the operation or cancel any order of transfer made under this sub-section or the rules made thereunder.
Paresh Chandra Nandi v. Controller of Store AIR 1971 S.C. 359
Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628
S.G Jaisinghani v. Union of India AIR 1967 S.C. 1427
Simons Engg. & Mfg. Co. v. Union of India AIR 1976 S.C. 1785
Virendra v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 S.C. 896
Ajantha Industries v. C. Board Direct Taxes AIR 1976 S.C. 437
Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore AIR 1970 S.C. 2042
Chinta Lingam v. Government of India AIR 1971 S.C. 474
Devidas v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 S.C. 1895
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 S.C. 555
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India AIR 1960 S.C. 554
Harakchand v. U.O.I. AIR 1970 S.C. 1453
Hari Shankar Bagla v. M.P. State AIR 1954 S.C. 465
Jalan Trading Co. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1967 S.C. 691
Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1980 (4) S.C.C. 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.