HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Surjeet Singh, S/o Shri Jagroop Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7602 of 2025
Decided On : 16-04-2025
(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 - Transfer of Panchayat employees - The petitioner challenged the transfer order on grounds of lack of authority, violation of transfer ban, and improper basis for transfer. The court found the transfer order invalid as it was not issued by a competent authority and did not meet legal standards for work arrangement. (Paras 2, 6, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Authority to Transfer - The court reiterated that BDO/VDO lacks independent authority to transfer Panchayat officials without proper consultation and authorization. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another without proper authority during a transfer ban, prompting the challenge. The transfer was purportedly on a work arrangement basis, which the law does not recognize.
Findings of Court:
The transfer order was quashed as it was issued by an unauthorized person and did not comply with legal requirements.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the transfer order, the authority of the BDO to issue such orders, and the validity of transfers during a ban period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer order was invalid due to lack of authority and failure to meet legal standards for work arrangements, emphasizing that such transfers can only occur under exceptional circumstances.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the transfer order is quashed.
Order :
(REKHA BORANA, J.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-5) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat 5KK to 39 RB Panchayat Samiti Padampur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised following three grounds:-
(i) The order impugned has been passed reflecting the transfer to be on work arrangement basis whereas law does not recognise any such term of work arrangement. In support of his submission counsel relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Sukumar Kashyap Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7916/2021 (decided on 16.08.2021).
(ii) The order impugned was passed during the ban period i.e. during the period when there was a complete ban by State Government on transfers of Panchayat employees. Counsel submits that before passing of the order impugned, no permission of the State Government/Chief Minister was taken whereas as per the Circular/Order of the Government, even if any transfer order was required to be passed on urgent basis, permission of the State Government/Chief Minister was essential. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; (decided on 20.07.2007).
(iii) The order impugned has been passed by the Development Officer whereas as per the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 it is only the District Establishment Committee which is competent to transfer employees of Panchayat Samiti. In support of his submission counsel relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kera Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Writ Petition No.2909/2024 (decided on 30.04.2024).
3. An application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC has been filed on behalf of the concerned Gram Panchayat through its Administrator for impleadment in the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the petitioner is posted at present place since years and as per office order dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure-A/2) of the State Government, no employee of a Panchayat Samiti can be posted at his place of residence. He submits that admittedly, the petitioner is a permanent resident of the Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, the transfer order has rightly been passed by the Development Officer.
5. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
6. In Kera Ram’s case (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue whether a BDO/VDO is authorized to independently transfer Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti, observed and held as under:-
“The CEO/Addl. CEO (DEO & BDO) can issue orders only under State Government’s instructions, as per Rule 289 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Generally, the power to transfer lies with the Panchayat Samiti, Zila Parishad, or the State Government. When there is disagreement between these bodies and the State, the power is delegated to the CEO/BDO/Vikas Adhikari to execute State Government instructions. But BDOs/VDOs are not authorized independently to transfer Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti. Further, BDOs/VDOs are not authorized to independently order an appointment by transfer of Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti without consulting the Pradhans or Pramukhs of the involved Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad. Thus, the answer to questions 3 and 4 is negative.”
7. In view of the above ratio to the effect that BDO/VDO is not authorized independently to transfer Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti, the order impugned passed by the BDO being not passed by a competent authority, cannot be maintained.
8. Further, evidently the order impugned reflects the same to be passed for work arrangement basis and as observed in Dr. Sukumar Kashyap(supra), posting on work arrangement basis, though not known to law, can be sparingly made to meet out sudden emergent situat
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.
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 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 central legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of transferring the petitioner under Rule 6(7) of the Rules of 2011 and the absence of a mandatory requirement for approval f....
Transfers of employees must comply with statutory provisions, including obtaining necessary consents, to ensure legality and fairness.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.