Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN, J
Ganga Singh S/o. Shri Nathuram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard.
2. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 05.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1815/2025 (Ganga Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), mainly on the ground that the said order has been passed in violation of the provisions contained in Rule 8(iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the judgment dated 11.10.2018, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Samleta (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.736/2018) was not properly appreciated and the judgment dated 14.01.2022, rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mool Shanker (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.683/2021) has also not been correctly interpreted by the learned Single Judge. He would further submit that the judgment in the case of State of Samleta (Supra) is very clear that prior consent is necessary.
4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge, despite having found that consent has not been obtained, dismissed the writ petition with a direction
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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....
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
