HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Devilal Pargi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11335 and 11341/2022
Decided On : 07-09-2022
Rule 289 - Transfer within the district - [Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, Rule 289] - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 289, which governs the transfer of employees within the district. It emphasized that the District Establishment Committee has the authority to make a decision on transfers, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad has the jurisdiction to pass transfer orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged their transfer from Panchayat Samiti, Ghatol, to Panchayat Samiti, Kushalgarh, citing violation of Rule 289 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Establishment Committee has the authority to make transfer decisions, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad has the jurisdiction to pass transfer orders. It dismissed the writ petitions, stating that there was no substance in the claims.
Issues: Violation of Rule 289 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, and jurisdiction of the District Establishment Committee and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad.
Ratio Decidendi: The District Establishment Committee has the authority to make transfer decisions, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad has the jurisdiction to pass transfer orders.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no substance in the claims.
JUDGMENT
Arun Bhansali, J. - These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 28.7.2022 (Annex. 1), whereby, the petitioners - Gram Vikas Adhikari, have been transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Ghatol, to Panchayat Samiti, Kushalgarh, pursuant to the decision of the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad, Banswara.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in passing the order dated 28.7.2022 is contrary to the provisions of Rule 289 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, inasmuch as, the District Establishment Committee can only make a recommendation, whereas, it has taken a decision to transfer the petitioners and that the order impugned has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara, who has no jurisdiction to pass the order.
3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.
4. The order impugned inter alia reads as under:-
ftyk LFkkiuk lfefr dh cSBd fnuakd 20-07-2022 ds fu.kZ;kuqlkj fuEukafdr xzke fodkl vf/kdkfj;ksa ds LFkkukUrj.k@inLFkkiu rRdky ÁHkko fd;s tkrs gSa%&
| ، la[;k | Ukke dkfeZd | inuke | dgka ls | dgka dks |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
| 4 | Jh fnus'k ikjxh | xzke fodkl vf/kŒ | iapk;r lfefr ?kkVksy | iapk;r lfefr dq'kyx< |
| 5 | Jh nsohykyh ikjxh | xzke fodkl vf/kŒ | iapk;r lfefr ?kkVksy | iapk;r lfefr dq'kyx< |
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
uksV%&
1- mDr lwph esa ls ;fn dksbZ dkfeZd ekuuh; U;k;ky;@vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr LFkxu vkns'k dh ikyuk esa dk;Zjr gS rks ,sls dkfeZd dk LFkkukUrj.k@inLFkkiu vkns'k vekU; ekuk tkos A
2- mDr lwph esa ls fdlh dkfeZd dh ijhfo{kk/khu vof/k lekIr ugha gqbZ gS rks ,sls dkfeZd dk inLFkkiu@LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k vekU; ekuk tkosA
,lMh@&
28-07-2022
eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh]
ftyk ifj"kn] ckalokMkA
5. The provisions of Rule 289, relevant for the purpose of present case, reads as under:-
"Rule 289. Transfer within the district. - (1) The name of the employee desiring transfer or desired to be transferred within the district shall be communicated to the Administration and Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad concerned by the Panchayat Samiti.
(2) Posting by transfer of such an employee shall be made by the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad concerned on the recommendation of the Administration and Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad"
6. A perusal of the above provision indicates that the name of the employee desiring transfer or desired to be transferred within the district is to be communicated by the Panchayat Samiti to the Administration and Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad concerned and posting by transfer of such an employee has to be made by the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad concerned on the recommendation of the Administration and Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad concerned.
7. In the present case, the District Establishment Committee has considered the matter pertaining to the transfer of Gram Vikas Adhikari, whereby, as many as 7 persons have been transferred from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti and a decision to transfer the petitioners from Panchayat Samiti, Ghatol to Panchayat Samiti, Kushalgarh, has been taken.
8. The submissions made that the order could not have been passed by way of a decision by the District Establishment Committee, rather it was only required to make recommendation and thereafter, a decision should have been taken, cannot be countenanced. From the express language of the provision, which requires that on transfer being desired by the Panchayat Samiti, the same shall be communicated to the District Establishment Committee and once the District Establishment Committee considers the same,
The authority of the District Establishment Committee to make transfer decisions and the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad to pass transfer orders.
The State Government has the power to transfer any member of the service from one place of posting to another, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 89 (8) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 19....
Transfer orders must specify duty locations and consult local governing bodies per statutory requirements, fostering transparency in governance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Rule 15(j) of the M.P. Jila Panchayat (Business) Rules, 1998 and the significance of compliance with Rule 3(b), (d) and 6(7....
Section 89(8)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 mandates consultation before employee transfers, making such transfers without consultation invalid.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of transferring the petitioner under Rule 6(7) of the Rules of 2011 and the absence of a mandatory requirement for approval f....
The court emphasized that compliance with transfer rules is mandatory, allowing ex-post facto consent to validate transfer orders while highlighting the need for humane considerations in administrati....
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.