HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2944/2026 Manak Chand S/o Lakshminarayanan, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Sandiya, Gram Panchayat Sojat, District Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department, Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Additional Commissioner And Deputy Government Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

3. District Collector, District Pali, Rajasthan.

4. Sub-Divisional Officer (Sdo), Sojat, District Pali, Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Ahmed Siddiqui Ms. Hena Aman Siddiqui For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh A. Purohit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

10/02/2026 In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner-cum-Deputy Secretary to the Government (Inquiry), whereby the petitioner was relieved from the post of Administrator on account of alleged irregularities said to have been committed by him.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Puranmal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5608/2025) decided on 17.05.2025,, has held that removal of an Administrator from the post must be preceded by due compliance with the provisions contained under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. In the present case, upon perusal of the material available on record as well as the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 passed in pursuance of order dated 11.02.2025, this Court prima facie finds that the procedure prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 has not been followed, yet an order removing the petitioner from the post of Administrator has been passed.

At this stage, Mr. Devesh A. Purohit, learned counsel, submitted that he has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC on behalf of one Prabhu Singh, who has been given charge of the post of Administrator after removal of the petitioner, as the post of Administrator cannot be kept vacant.

Learned counsel further submitted that since the applicant, Prabhu Singh, has already assumed charge, he is a necessary and proper party to the litigation and, therefore, no order should be passed without impleading him as a party respondent in the present matter.

Heard.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant, Prabhu Singh, has been appointed/given charge of the post of Administrator solely for the reason that the petitioner was removed from the said post vide order dated 02.02.2026 on the ground of alleged irregularities. Thus, the order appointing/giving charge to the applicant is nothing but a consequential order arising out of the impugned order dated 02.02.2026.

In the opinion of this Court, merely because the applicant has been given charge of the post of Administrator by the respondents upon removal of the petitioner vide order dated 02.02.2026, none of his legal or fundamental rights are affected. Therefore, he cannot be said to be a necessary or proper party to the present litigation.

Consequently, the application (I.A. No. 1/26) filed on behalf of the applicant for impleadment as a party respondent is hereby rejected.

Heard.

Issue notice of the main writ petition.

Issue notice of the stay application as well.

In the meanwhile, and till the next date of hearing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 02.02.2026, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner-cum-Deputy Secretary to the Government (Inquiry), shall remain stayed, and the petitioner shall be restored to the post of Administrator, Gram Panchayat Sandiya, Panchayat Samiti, Sojat, District Pali.

However, it is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, if so advised.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

31-himanshu/-