IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ARUN MONGA, J.
Kishan Lal Suthar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4494 of 2024
Decided on : 27-03-2024
(A) Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 - Rule 9 and Rule 412 - Transfer of Patwari - Transfer order challenged on grounds of violation of transfer policy and rules - Court held that transfer can occur for administrative exigency and to fill vacancies, thus dismissing the writ petition. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Judicial Precedent - The court followed the ratio laid down in Gopalram v. The State of Rajasthan, affirming that guidelines regarding transfer periods are not absolute restrictions. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged his transfer order, claiming it violated the transfer policy and rules regarding the tenure of Patwaris.
Findings of Court:
The transfer was justified under Rule 9 for administrative exigency to fill a vacant post.
Issues: Whether the transfer violated the transfer policy and rules regarding tenure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that transfers can occur for administrative reasons, and guidelines are not enforceable restrictions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Mr. Arun Monga, J. - Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 22.02.2024, vide which petitioner has been transferred from Patwar Mandal Thamla Tehsil Ghasa to Patwar Mandal Boyna Tehsil Mavli against vacant position, he has filed the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy and Rule 9 and Rule 412 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957. He submits that the petitioner has been transferred before expiry of two years, which is in contravention to the circular as issued by the State Government, which provides that a Patwari cannot ordinarily be transferred before a period of two years from one place of posting.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgments rendered in Rajpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.544/2021, decided on 18.03.2021 and Inder Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: reported in (2007) 1 RLW (Raj.) 737.
4. Per contra, my attention has been drawn to a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dal Chand Jat v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3112/2024, decided on 05.03.2024. The relevant part of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"12. Coming to the contention of the appellant that the transfer order issued by the District Collector is violative of provisions of Rule 9 (ii) and Rule 412, a conjoint reading of Rule 9 and Rule 412 indicates that a Patwari should not be ordinarily transferred, but then, he can always be transferred when considered necessary in the interest of efficiency of work or to fill up vacancy created by long leave, resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of the Patwari. Suffice it to say that besides for administrative exigency, a Patwari can be transferred even to fill up the vacant post created on account of various contingencies enumerated. Thus, on account of administrative exigency, inter-alia to fill up the vacant posts, if number of employees holding the post of Patwaris are transferred within the District, in no manner, it can be said that the order impugned passed by the District Collector without recording the satisfaction regarding necessity in the interest of efficiency of work, is violative of provisions of Rule 9 (ii) and Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957. As a matter of fact, the order impugned by itself reflects that the transfers have been effected for administrative exigency to fill up the vacant posts.
13. Admittedly, the transfer of a Patwari from one place to another within the Sub-Division, District, Division or State is regulated by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 which nowhere restricts the transfer of a Patwari prior to completion of a particular period of posting at a particular place. The circular/instructions issued by the State Government providing for transfer of Patwari after completion of the tenure of two years, are in the nature of guidelines not enforceable and cannot be construed in the manner suggested so as to put absolute restriction on the power to be exercised by the authorities enumerated under Rule 9 to transfer a Patwari for administrative exigency or other contingencies specified. In other words, notwithstanding the instructions issued by the State Government as aforesaid, the authority empowered can transfer a Patwari at any time for administrative exigency in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. It is a different matter that even otherwise in absence of administrative exigency, an employee holding the transferable post cannot be frequently transferred by his employer a
Transfers of Patwaris can occur for administrative exigency, and guidelines regarding tenure are not absolute restrictions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of Patwaris is an exception and cannot be made as a routine. The court emphasized the importance of Rule 9 and Rule 412, which di....
Transfers of Patwaris must comply with specific legal provisions that require justification based on efficiency or vacancy filling, and cannot be made arbitrarily or as a punitive measure.
A transfer order for a Patwari must specify the place of posting to comply with procedural requirements, ensuring the competent authority's application of mind.
A transfer order for a Patwari must specify the place of posting to demonstrate the competent authority's consideration of efficiency and vacant positions, as mandated by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957.
Transfers of Patwaris must comply with procedural requirements, including the necessity of a formal satisfaction note by the competent authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to transfer a Patwari is vested in the Collector and the Board of Revenue, and inter-division transfers can only be made upon the Pa....
Transfers of Patwaris must comply with the authority and procedures established in the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957.
The court affirmed that transfer orders for government employees are generally not subject to judicial interference unless proven to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory rules.
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.