A third party, such as an elected member of a local body, lacks locus standi to challenge the transfer orders of government employees under service jurisdiction, as transfer is an incident of service.

Order

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this writ petition and -

(i).by appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby direct the respondents to make compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 89.8A of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rules-289 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 , while transferring the Panchayti Raj Employees (VDO/LDC) within District.

(ii).by appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby quash and set aside the Order dated 15/1/2025 (Annexure- 2) passed by the Respondent no-4 in violation of Section 89.8A of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rules-289 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 , without consent or approval of the establishment committee.

(iii).any other order or direction may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court found deem and proper in the fact of this circumstance.”

The petitioner, who is an elected member of the Panchayat Samiti, has challenged the transfer order dated 15.01.2025 issued by the Gram Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra, transferring Village Development Officers from one place to another. The transfer order has been challenged on the ground that it has been issued in utter disregard of Section 89(8)(ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 289 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 .

It is to be noticed that none of the Gram Vikas Adhikari who have been transferred from one place to another under the impugned transfer orders has challenged the same. It has also been informed that the impugned transfer orders have already been executed.

In the opinion of this Court, a writ petition challenging transfer orders of certain individuals cannot be entertained/maintained at the instance of a third party, i.e., an elected member of the Panchayat Samiti as in the present case. Transfer being an incident of service, interference by Court in such matters is permissible only on limited grounds. General judicial review of transfer orders at the behest of a third party/politician cannot be undertaken by this Court while exercising service jurisdiction, and, therefore, if the petitioner had any grievance against the impugned transfer orders, he ought to have filed a Public Interest Litigation.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

All pending applications stand disposed of.