SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Rekha Borana, J.
Rakesh Kumar Jangid – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3275 of 2024
Decided On : 06-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Awar Dan Ujjwal
For the Respondents: Jitendra Choudhary, Praveen Khandelwal

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.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 - Rule 9 - Transfer of Patwari - Impugned order transferring petitioner without specifying place of posting quashed - Court emphasized that competent authority must indicate Patwar Circle or Tehsil for transfer to ensure efficiency of work - Transfer without such indication shows lack of application of mind. (Paras 1, 4, 5)

(B) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that a transfer order must reflect the authority's awareness of the vacant position and the necessity for the transfer based on efficiency. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the transfer order from Patwar Mandal Sumel to District Pali, arguing it contravened Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 due to lack of specified posting.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed as it failed to specify the place of posting, indicating a lack of consideration for the petitioner's efficiency and the vacant positions.

Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer order complied with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 regarding the specification of posting.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a transfer order must specify the place of posting to demonstrate that the competent authority applied its mind to the efficiency of work and the vacant positions.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioner, who is working as a Patwari, has been sought to be transferred from Patwar Mandal Sumel, Tehsil Raipur, District Beawar to District Pali, without specifying the exact place of posting/Patwar Mandal. Learned counsel submits that the same is even otherwise, in contravention to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1957').

In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 544/2021 (decided on 18.03.2021).

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Collector is very well empowered to pass appropriate order regarding place of posting after the transfer order having been passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, even if the order impugned does not mention the specific place of posting, it can be taken care of by the Collector.

3. Heard the counsels. Perused the order impugned.

4. A perusal of the order impugned dated 22.02.2024 makes it clear that no specific place of posting has been mentioned in the same. While dealing with a similar situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajpal Singh's case (supra), held that, even if the State or competent authority wishes to transfer a patwari from one place to another, he has to satisfy himself about the interest of efficiency of work or to fill the vacant post. The Court in the said matter, observed that a transfer made without indicating Patwar Circle or even Tehsil is enough to show lack of application of mind and hence, it cannot be inferred that the competent authority was aware of the present vacant position in the said district and that too, the requirement of petitioner's efficiency in such Patwar Circle, for which his transfer was warranted.

The Court, in the said circumstances concluded as under:

    “28. If the competent authority has not decided or was not aware, where the concerned patwari is to be transferred, it cannot be presumed that the competent authority has applied its mind towards the vacant position, falling vacant on account of exigencies mentioned in clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957. Nor can he be presumed to have ascertained that interest of efficiency of work required that petitioner should be transferred to a far flung place at Hanumangarh.”

5. In view of the above ratio which squarely covers the present matter, the order impugned dated 22.02.2024 qua the present petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition is hence, allowed.

6. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

7. It is however made clear that the present order would not be termed to preclude the State Authorities from passing fresh orders, in terms of law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top