1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR

RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------

CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 8107 of 2016

PETITIONER:

Rajendra Solanki S/o Late Shri Achla Ram By Caste

Mali, age 50 years, Resident of Presently working as

Gram Sevak, & Ex.-officio Secretary, Gram Panchayat

Vayad, Panchayat Samiti Rohat Distt. Pali (Raj.)

VS

RESPONDENTS

[1] The State Of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,

Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

[2] The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali

(Raj.)

[3] Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Rohat Distt. Pali

(Raj.)

Date of Order

:

28.09.2016

HON'BLE Miss JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Mr. Girish Sankhla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Manish Patel, Additional Government Counsel for

the respondents.

ORDER

-----------

1.

The present writ petition has been filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to

challenge the impugned transfer order dated

08.07.2016.

2

2.

In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner

was working on the post of Gram Sevak Vayad,

Panchayat Samiti Rohat and was transferred to the

Gram Samiti and directed to hand overcharge of Gram

Sevak Vayad to Narayan Singh.

3.

Mr. Girish Sankhla learned counsel for the

petitioner contends that the said impugned order has

been passed without jurisdiction, since the same has

been issued by the Vikas Adhikari. Moreover, as per

the transfer policy dated 08.09.2014, no employee of

the Department could be transferred within a period of

three years. It is argued that the petitioner had joined

the duties on 19.08.2015 and, therefore, had only

completed one year's service at Gram Panchayat

Vayad.

4.

Per contra, Mr. Manish Patel counsel for

respondents argues that transfer is an incidence of

service and the Court should not interfere in the said

matter until and unless the allegations are of malafide

and in the instant case, no such allegations have been

leveled by the petitioner. It is contended that the

petitioner was posted in Gram Panchayat Vayad but on

account of various complaints about his work, the

House recommended that he be transferred out to

3

Panchayat Samiti Rohat . It is argued that the transfer

has been made by invoking Rule 334 (3) of the

Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the

Rules of 1996’) which stipulates that the Vikas

Adhakari has powers to transfer any member of the

service within the area of the Panchayat Samiti . It is

also submitted that under Section 89 (8) (ii) of the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter

referred as ‘the Act of 1994’) transfer can be made

after consultation with the Pradhans or Pramukhs as

the case may be of the Panchayat Samitis and in the

present case the transfer of the petitioner was

made after consultation with the Pradhan at the

meeting of the Standing Committee.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have perused the record of the case.

6.

Section 89(8) (ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

Act, 1994; '

“89(8)(ii); Transfer shall be made after

consultation with the Pradhans or the

Pramukhs, as the case may be, of the

Panchayat Samitis or the Zila Parishads from

and to which such transfer is proposed to be

made .''

Rule 289 of the Rules of 1996 is quoted as under:-

289 :

Transfer within the district:-

4

(1) The name of the employee desiring

transfer or desired to be transferred within

the district shall be communicated to the

District Establishment Committee by the

Panchayat Samiti.

(2) Posting by transfer of such an employee

shall be made by the Panchayat Samiti or

Zila

Parishad

concerned

on

the

recommendation

of

the

District

Establishment Committee.

(3) State Government may issue orders

regards transfers