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

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 472

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
RAMA RAM CHOUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 2332 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. Chatur Bhuj, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat, Mr. K.P. Raj Singh, Mr. I.C. Choudhary – AAG

Section 89(8)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 mandates consultation before employee transfers, making such transfers without consultation invalid.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 89 - Transfer of employees - The petitioners challenged the transfer orders for lack of consultation with Pradhans or Pramukhs as mandated by Section 89(8)(ii) of the Act. The court cited previous judgments establishing the necessity of such consultation. (Paras 3-5)

(B) Mandatory nature of provisions - The court determined that Section 89(8)(ii) is mandatory, as established by prior case law, reinforcing the requirement for consultation in transfer orders. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were transferred without the required consultation from the Zila Pradhan, leading to the challenge of the transfer orders.

Findings of Court:
The transfer orders were set aside due to non-compliance with the mandatory consultation requirement.

Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer orders violated the mandatory provisions of Section 89(8)(ii) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of consultation with the Pradhans or Pramukhs invalidates the transfer orders, affirming the mandatory nature of the provision.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

Order :

1. Vide this common order, the aforesaid bunch is being disposed of together as not only the facts involved are similar, but even the issue therein is akin.

2. Illustratively, for the sake of brevity, recitals are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2332/2025. Petitioner is before this Court assailing an order dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.-3) passed by respondent No.1, vide which he has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Bandavera, Panchayat Samiti, Dhanau to Gram Panchayat Udasar, Panchayat Samiti, Dhorimanna.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter-alia contends that not only there is gross violation of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 but also that of judgment rendered by this Court in Kera Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2909/2024 decided on 30.04.2024.

4. Whether or not Section 89 Sub-section 8(ii) of the Act of 1994 is mandatory or not is not res integra any more in view of the catena of judgments rendered by this Court from time to time. Illustratively, reference may be had to judgment rendered in Mohan Lal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13248/2009, decided on 15.12.2010 by this Court at Jaipur Bench read with judgment rendered in Kera Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2909/2024, decided on 30.04.2024 by this Court particularly in the concluding part thereof where transfer guidelines were framed. For ready reference, guideline No.7 therein, reads as under:-

“(VII). Section 89(8)(ii) of the Act, 1994 mandates that a Zilla Parishad can transfer an employee from a Panchayat Samiti only after consulting the Pradhans or Pramukhs of the respective Panchayat Samitis or Zilla Parishads involved in the transfer.”

5. In view of the aforesaid, since it is a conceded position that no consultation was sought from the Zila Pradhan before passing the transfer orders of the petitioners from one Panchayat Samiti to the other Panchayat Samiti, the impugned transfer orders, qua the petitioners, do not stand scrutiny of law and are accordingly set aside.

6. In the premise, writ petitions as numbered above are allowed.

7. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that in case, work exigency so warrants, fresh orders may be passed in accordance with Section 89 of the Act of 1994 read with the judgment rendered in Kera Ram ibid.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

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 Back to top