Order

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a writ petition, involving identical controversy, being SBCWP No.17464/2025 : Seema v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein the petitioner therein, had been afforded appointment pursuant to selection by the District Establishment Committee, who was placed under suspension by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad, a Coordinate Bench of this Court while admitting and issuing notices to the respondents, had granted interim relief vide order dated 23.09.2025. The order dated 23.09.2025 reads as under:

“1. Heard on the interim application.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by the Panchayat Samiti and is working as a Vikas Adhikari (Village Development Officer) and his appointment was made pursuant to a selection by the District Establishment Committee. On the recommendation of the District Establishment Committee, the Panchayat Samiti took the decision for appointment and that decision has to be implemented by the Block Development Officer or Khand Vikas Adhikari (Block Development Officer). His appointing authority is only the Panchayat Samiti. The suspension has to be made by the Panchayat Samiti through its Executive Officer, who is the Block Development Officer.

3. However, in the present case, the suspension order was passed by the Chief Executive Officer, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad. The authority higher than the Panchayat Samiti is the Zila Parishad. If, at all, the Zila Parishad is the higher authority, then the appointing authority, i.e. the Zila Parishad, has taken the decision to suspend and such decision can be implemented by the Chief Executive Officer. However, in the present case, such decision is being taken by the Chief Executive Officer, which is not in accordance with the procedure and is without jurisdiction in the eyes of law.

4. As seen from Rule 276 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, the employees relating to the Zila Parishad and the Panchayat Samiti have to be appointed either by the Zila Parishad or by the Panchayat Samiti. This means that the appointing authority is the Panchayat Samiti in respect of employees to be appointed for the Panchayat Samiti and the Zila Parishad is the appointing authority so far as employees concerned with the Zila Parishad are concerned. The Chief Executive Officer or the Block Development Officer are only Executive Officers who are to execute the decisions of the Zila Parishad or Panchayat Samiti respectively. In the absence of any decision from the Zila Parishad for suspension, the Chief Executive Officer has no independent authority to act unless it is shown that such delegation is given by the Zila Parishad under any resolution. In the present case, no such delegation or authorization is evident, as seen from the impugned order.

5. In the said circumstances, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 (Annex.9) issued by respondent no.3-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur, as well as other consequential relieving orders, shall be stayed.

6. Admit.

7. Issue notice to the respondents.

8. Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, learned DGC appears and accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. Hence, service upon respondents is treated as complete.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file reply, if any, by the next date of hearing.

10. Respondents are at liberty to file an application for seeking vacation of interim order.

11. Post the matter on 17.10.2025.”

2. The matter requires consideration.

3. Admit . Issue notice to the respondents.

4. Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, learned counsel accepts notices on behalf of respondents. He prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file reply to the writ petition.

5. In the meanwhile and until the next date, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 09.04.2026 (Annex.2) issued by the respondent No.2