Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
Ramnivas - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CW / 1671 / 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - 73rd Amendment - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 - Rule 8 - Transfer of employees - Petitioners challenge the legality and procedure of their transfers, asserting violations of mandatory rules. Rule 8(ii) requires transfers within the same district to be executed by the District Establishment Committee, which was not followed. Rule 8(iii) mandates prior consent from the Panchayati Raj Department for transfers between districts, which was not obtained in some cases. The court found that the impugned transfer orders were issued by unauthorized authorities, thus setting them aside while allowing for fresh orders to be made in compliance with the rules. (Paras 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 19, 20, 25)
(B) Administrative Law - Fairness in transfers - The court emphasized the need for a fair and humane approach in administrative decisions affecting employees, particularly in cases of personal hardships. (Paras 19, 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested their transfers as being executed without following the proper legal framework established by the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, resulting in severe personal hardships for many.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the illegal transfer orders and directed compliance with the statutory provisions.
Issues: The legality of employee transfers under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules and the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfers must comply with the mandatory provisions of the relevant rules and emphasized the importance of considering the personal circumstances of affected employees.
Result: The impugned transfer orders were set aside, allowing for fresh orders to be issued in compliance with the law.
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 administrative propriety of the transfers/postings of the petitioners. Vide this common order, all the Appendix [(A) to (C)], ibid are being disposed of as similar issues are involved therein.
3. First and foremost, reference may be had to Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules , 2011 (for short 2011 Rules), in particular Rule 8 thereof, which reads as under:-
“8. Transfer -
Transfer of such transferred employees shall be made under the transfer policy and directions issued by the State Government from time to time, by:-
i. the Administration and Establishment Committee of the Panchayat Samiti concerned within the same Panchayat Samiti.
ii. the Administration Establishment Committee of the Zila Parisad concerned from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same District.
iii. the department concerned from one district to another district with the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department.”
Non compliance of sub rule (ii) and/or (iii), ibid is complained by the petitioners.
4. Some of the petitioners also allege violation of Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules). The said rule, for ready reference, is also reproduced hereinbelow:-
"31. Appointment to the service.-
Appointment to post(s) in the Service by direct recruitment or by promotion, as the case may be, shall be made by the Appointing Authority on occurrence of substantive vacancies from the candidates selected under rule 25 in order of merit and by promotion from the persons selected under rule 29 of these rules. The persons so appointed shall be transferable from one place to the other within the Scheduled Areas irrespective of the place of appointment taking the entire Scheduled Area as a Unit i.e. the entire Scheduled Area shall be the closed cadre. When a person so appointed cannot be transferred out side this closed cadre in any capacity which also includes deputation & reverse deputation."
5. Effectively thus, the bunch of petitions herein can be segregated into three categories, i.e.:-
(A) Those, where the petitioners (Appendix-A) are aggrieved by alleged violation of Rule 8 (ii) of the Rules of 2011, ibid contending that the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Samiti has not passed the order while transferring them from one Panchayat Samiti to another within the same District.
(B) Where (Appendix-B) petitioners are aggrieved with alleged violation of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011, ibid, stating that consent of Panachayati Raj department has not been taken.
(C) Where, apart from alleged violation of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, transfers have been carried out either from TSP Area to Non-TSP Area or vice versa averring non compliance of Rule 31 of th
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
