HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9666 / 2016

Sharda Bishnoi D/o Mangna Ram, B/c Bishnoi, Aged about 31

years, (Divorcee), Resident of Chak 5 RDY, Village Godu, Tehsil

Kolayat, Bikaner District.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of

Rural Development and Panchayati Raj., Govt. of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Zila Parishad, Bikaner through Chief Executive Officer.

3.

Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.

4.

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kolayat.

5.

Block Development Officer, Kolayat.

6.

Kishan Lal Badgujar, Gram Sevak, Ranjeetpura, Tehsil

Kolayat, Dist. Bikaner

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Nimesh Suthar, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manish Patel, AGC

Mr.R.S.Choudhary, Advocate

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

Order

18/01/2017

The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order

dated 29.07.2016 (Annx.6) with a further prayer to allow the

petitioner to continue at the place where she was working prior to

passing of the said order.

(2 of 3)

[CW-9666/2016]

The petitioner was appointed on the post of L.D.C. and

posted at Bikampur in the year 2014. She was given the additional

charge of L.D.C., Gram Panchayat, Godu vide order dated

16.12.2014. However, the said charge was taken back vide order

dated 08.04.2015 only to restore it vide order dated 11.06.2015.

Subsequently, the additional charge of the Gram Sevak, Gram

Panchayat Ranjeetpura was also given vide order dated

21.07.2015. Thus, the petitioner was holding her own post as LDC

at Bikampur and additional charge of Gram Sevak at Godu and

Ranjeetpura simultaneously.

Thereafter, on 29.07.2016, respondent No.4 passed the

order posting the respondent No.6- Kishan Lal Badgurjar as Gram

Sevak, Gram Panchayat Ranjeetpura. The petitioner has

challenged the said order on the ground that the said charge of

the post Gram Sevak, Ranjeetpura has not been taken away from

the petitioner till date. Hence, the transfer order of respondent

No.6 on the said post could not have been passed without taking

the charge from the petitioner.

Reply has been filed by the State as well as the respondent

No.6.

It is admitted position that the petitioner is an L.D.C. and the

additional charge of Gram Sevak, Ranjeetpura was given to her for

continuing the work of Gram Panchayat in the absence of any

other available Gram Sevak. In these circumstances, the petitioner

cannot have any grievance with the order transferring respondent

No.6 on the post of Gram Sevak. Admittedly, the respondent No.6

is Gram Sevak, whereas, the petitioner who is an L.D.C., was only

(3 of 3)

[CW-9666/2016]

given additional charge. However, this court finds merit in the

argument of the petitioner that at least, a formal order to hand

over the charge to respondent No.6 should have been passed.

It is pointed out that the respondent No.6 has since joined

the said post and the charge has also been taken by him. It is not

disputed that the petitioner has no right to the said post and the

respondent No.6 is otherwise eligible to be posted on the said

post. In these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served to

continue with the writ petition. The same is, accordingly,

dismissed. However, the petitioner shall handover the charge, in

case it is not already handed over.

(NIRMALJIT KAUR)J.

NK/10