Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
Ramnivas – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
1. Vide 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India , the Panchayati Raj Institution was significantly empowered by bringing 29 vital departments, as listed in the 11th Schedule, under its jurisdiction. In furtherance of the said constitutional mandate, the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan took an administrative decision to transfer certain activities, including financial resources and personnel, from the earlier respective departments to the Panchayati Raj Department. For smooth devolution of power, the State of Rajasthan also enacted the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, envisaging legal framework governing the transfer of State Government employees. Notably, Rule 8 of these rules explicitly stipulates the mode and manner of the transfer of employees.
2. In all the petitions, as per Appendix A, B and C of the instant order, common assertion is that not only the transfers of petitioners are in mechanical exercise of mind but also in blatant non-compliance of applicable Rules. Facts of individual cases are thus not being gone into, as what is under challenge herein simplicitor is the procedure, legality and the administra
Transfers of employees must comply with statutory provisions, including obtaining necessary consents, to ensure legality and fairness.
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 – ....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Rule 15(j) of the M.P. Jila Panchayat (Business) Rules, 1998 and the significance of compliance with Rule 3(b), (d) and 6(7....
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 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....
Consent from the Panchayati Raj department is mandatory for inter-district transfers, but ex-post facto consent can validate such transfers if obtained within a reasonable timeframe.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; absence of a defined transfer policy renders such orders arbitrary, necessitating formulation of a policy.
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
