Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA, J
Ram Chander – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
1. This court is yet again being swamped each day with writ petitions by transferees of Panchayat department, alleging that the mass transfers carried out, are in violation of the letter & spirit and the intent of Section 89(8-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 coupled with the fact that the transfer guidelines framed by this Court in Kera Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2909/2024, decided on 30.04.2024 have been flagrantly violated, compelling them to approach this Court to seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the respective transfer orders.
2. Facts of the individual cases need not be gone into, as what is under challenge herein simpliciter is the manner, procedure, legality and administrative propriety of the transfers/postings. Assertion is that not only it is mechanical exercise of mind, but also colorable exercise of powers taking advantage of the non obstante clause contained in the Section ibid.
3. In fact, instead of adjudicating the controversy all over again, suffice it would be to reproduce the relevant extract of the judgment rendered in Kera Ram ibid, as below:-
“13. The following questions of
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 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....
Transfers of employees must comply with statutory provisions, including obtaining necessary consents, to ensure legality and fairness.
Section 89(8)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 mandates consultation before employee transfers, making such transfers without consultation invalid.
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.
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 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....
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.
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
