Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2542 (RAJ)

Sunil Devi v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-11-18

SANGEET LODHA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This petition is directed against order dated 28.2.17 issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Hanumangarh, whereby the petitioner holding the post of ANM at Sub Health Center, 2KSP has been kept awaiting posting order. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 1.3.17, whereby she has has been relieved from the post of ANM, Sub Health Center, 2KSP, pursuant to aforesaid order dated 28.2.17. 2. A perusal of the order dated 28.2.17 reveals that the petitioner has been kept under awaiting posting order in compliance of telephonic message received from Legislative Assembly, Rajasthan allegedly under the instructions of Minister for Medical & Health. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the employees working in Medical & Health Department in rural areas stands transferred to Panchayati Raj Institutions under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transfer Activities) Rules, 2011 (''the Rules of 2011'') and as per Rule 8, the transfer of the employees governed by the Rules of 2011, within the district from one Panchayat Samiti to another is permissible to be made by the District Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad concerned and in case of transfer from one district to another district by the Department concerned with the consent of Panchayati Raj Department and thus, the order impugned issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, whereby the petitioner has been kept awaiting posting order is ex facie without jurisdiction. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 13.11.17 rendered in the matter of ''Munesh Devi vs. State & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14522/16 and connected petitions). Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned has been issued in most arbitrary manner on the basis of alleged telephonic message without verifying the same appropriately and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed on this count alone. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Minister for Department of Medical & Health is empowered to issue directions to the CMHO to keep the employees under awaiting positing order and therefore, the order impugned issued pursuant to the direction of the Minister cannot be faulted with. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Minister for Department of Medical & Health is empowered to issue directions to the CMHO to keep the employees under awaiting positing order and therefore, the order impugned issued pursuant to the direction of the Minister cannot be faulted with. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that the CMHO is not the transferring authority of the petitioner, however, it is submitted that the order impugned is not the transfer order but an order whereby the petitioner has been kept awaiting posting order and therefore, the order issued by the CMHO under the instructions of the Minister for Medical & Health is well within his authority. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, the petitioner holding the post of ANM posted in rural areas governed by the Rules of 2011, could not have been transferred by the Department of Medical & Health even from one district to another without consent of Department of Panchayati Raj and thus, the order impugned issued by the CMHO in compliance of telephonic message conveyed allegedly under the instructions of the Minister for Medical & Health is ex faice without jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the Chief Medical & Health Officer, who is not the authority empowered to transfer the petitioner, could not have issued the order keeping her awaiting posting order. That apart, the action of the Chief Medical & Health Officer in issuing the order impugned in perfunctory manner on the basis of alleged telephonic message at the instance of Minister for Medical & Health without verifying the correctness thereof, cannot be countenanced by this Court. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 28.2.17 & 1.3.17 are quashed. It is made clear that the quashment of the orders impugned shall not preclude the competent authority from issuing transfer order of the petitioner in case of administrative exigency.