Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
RAMA RAM CHOUDHARY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
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 b
Section 89(8)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 mandates consultation before employee transfers, making such transfers without consultation invalid.
The court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural norms and respect for the autonomy of Panchayati Raj institutions in the context of mass transfers of officials under the Rajasthan Panchayat....
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 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....
The court ruled that a transfer order issued by an unauthorized authority during a ban period is invalid, emphasizing the need for proper legal grounds for such transfers.
Transfers of employees must comply with statutory provisions, including obtaining necessary consents, to ensure legality and fairness.
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 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.
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
