Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, Rajendra Prakash Soni, JJ.
Dinesh Kharadi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 34/2023
Decided On : 01-02-2023
TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ (TRANSFERRED ACTIVITIES) RULES, 2011 - RULE 8 - TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES - APPROVAL OF PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT - REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Medical Officer in the Medical and Health Department, was transferred from Udaipur to Dungarpur. He challenged the transfer order, arguing that it violated Rule 8(iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, which requires approval from the Panchayati Raj Department for transfers of employees working on transferred activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer order contained a recital stating that it was passed after due approval, which implied approval in terms of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011. The court also found that the appellant had concealed the fact that he had filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal challenging the transfer order, which was a material fact that should have been disclosed in the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer order violated Rule 8(iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, which requires approval from the Panchayati Raj Department for transfers of employees working on transferred activities. 2. Whether the appellant's concealment of the fact that he had filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal challenging the transfer order was a material fact that should have been disclosed in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transfer order satisfied the requirements of the Rules of 2011 and was therefore valid in the eyes of the law. 2. The court held that the appellant's concealment of the fact that he had filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal challenging the transfer order was a material fact that should have been disclosed in the writ petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the transfer order was valid and that the appellant's concealment of material facts justified the dismissal of the writ petition.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein for assailing the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby, the writ petition No.11570/2022) preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of concealment of material fact.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the intra court appeal are noted herein below:
The appellant writ petitioner, having been initially appointed on the post of Medical Officer in the Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan vide order dated 25.02.2005, was accorded two promotions and at the relevant point of time, he was working as the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Udaipur. The State Government issued an order dated 03.08.2022 under the signatures of the Joint Secretary, Medical and Health (Group-2) Department and the Panchayati Raj (Health) Department whereby, as many as 46 doctors (including the appellant) working on different positions in the State were transferred/ shifted to other locations. The petitioner, who was working as the CMHO, Udaipur, was transferred to the District Hospital, Dungarpur.
Being aggrieved of his transfer, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 06.08.2022. During pendency of the writ petition, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal on 05.08.2022 for questioning the legality and validity of the transfer order dated 03.08.2022. The Court was further informed that the petitioner had withdrawn the appeal and thus, the writ petition should be dismissed as being not maintainable. The learned Single Bench observed in the order dated 29.09.2022 that the only reason which was assigned in the application for withdrawal of the appeal was on account of family circumstances of the petitioner. The fact regarding filing of the writ petition was not disclosed in the withdrawal application filed before the Tribunal. The learned Single Bench, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition by order dated 10.01.2023 on the ground of non-disclosure of material fact in the writ petitioner i.e. the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The said order is assailed in this appeal.
3. Learned counsel Shri Sunil Kumar Singh and Shri Shanker Singh Rajpurohit representing the appellant writ petitioner, referred to Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 and urged that the transfer order has been passed in utter violation of the aforesaid Rule because approval of the Panchayati Raj Department was not taken before issuance of the impugned transfer order which was passed in violation of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011. They fervently contended that identical orders whereby, other doctors alike the petitioner were transferred, were challenged in a batch of 68 writ petitions filed before the Jaipur Bench of this Court and the learned Single Bench proceeded to allow the writ petitions by order dated 23.09.2022 and as such, sustaining identical order qua a similarly placed Medical Officer i.e. the appellant herein, would be nothing short of a travesty of justice. On these submissions, learned counsel Shri Singh and Shri Rajpurohit representing the appellant writ petitioner, implored the Court to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Bench and so also the impugned transfer order dated 03.08.2022.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. They contended that the petitioner admittedly made a grave concealment of fact while filing the writ petition inasmuch as the factum of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was not disclosed in pleadings of writ petition. Likewise, when the appeal was withdrawn from the Tribunal vide applic
The transfer of employees working on transferred activities under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, requires approval from the Panchayati Raj Department, and concealm....
Rule 8(ii) seeks to ratify transfers affected, that too cannot be done – an act which is void ab-initio cannot be ratified and that too by authority which has usurped powers.
The essential qualifications for a designation and the applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that transfers of employees from Panchayati Raj Institution must strictly comply with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011.
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....
Rule 8 is not a provision dealing with the procedural requirement or formality of processing an application etc. As a matter of fact, it is a power given to the State officials to effect transfers – ....
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
