Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1037 (RAJ)

Bhupendra Singh Rana v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-05

ALOK SHARMA

body2019
ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner is admittedly employed as Clerk Grade-I with the Women and Child Development Department, Government of Rajasthan but is "transferred employee" with the Panchayati Raj Institution within the meaning of the term under Rule 2(iv) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (hereafter 'the Rules of 2011'). 2. His case in the petition is that he was yet transferred as Clerk Grade-I with the Child Development Project, Badi, Dholpur on 1.8.2018 to the Child Development Project, Roopwas, Dist. Bharatpur by the Women and Child Development Department, Govt. of Raj without the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department wholly in the cross-hairs of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011. Besides neither administration exigency nor public interest informed the transfer which was only to accommodate respondent No. 4 one Bhagwan Singh at Badi, Dholpur. Hence the transfer order dated 1.8.2018 be set aside. 3. Mr. Rohil Bansal appearing for Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG for the respondent-State submitted that vide order dated 16.6.2018 by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department albeit under the hand of the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan it has been provided that in the transfer of employee of any department working with the Panchayati Raj Institutions, the transfer of such employee can be done by the parent Department. A copy of the order dated 16.6.2018 referred to the reply to the writ petition, has passed over to the Court during the course hearing of this petition, is taken on record. That order dated 16.6.2018, Mr. Rohil Bansal submitted constitutes the requisite consent under Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011. Mr. Rohil Bansal further submitted that the petitioner albeit a transferred employee under Rule 2(iv) of the Rules of 2011 is admittedly still an employee of the State Government in the Women and Child Department, Govt. of Rajasthan in terms of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 2011. The Women and Child Department can thus exercise administrative control over him including that of transfer. The restrain of consent of the Panchayati Raj Department on the powers of the Women and Child Development Department to transfer a "transferred employee" in a Panchayati Raj Institution under Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules of 2011 having been unlocked by the order dated 16.6.2018 the petitioner's transfer from the Child Development Project, Badi, Dist. The restrain of consent of the Panchayati Raj Department on the powers of the Women and Child Development Department to transfer a "transferred employee" in a Panchayati Raj Institution under Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules of 2011 having been unlocked by the order dated 16.6.2018 the petitioner's transfer from the Child Development Project, Badi, Dist. Dholpur to Child Development Project, Roopwas, District Bharatpur does not suffer any violation of the Rules of 2011. The petitioner's transfer is a mere incident of his service remains and has been made in administrative exigency and public interest ascertained in its discretion by the employer i.e. the Women and Child Development Department, Govt. of Rajasthan. Such a transfer could only have been interfered with by the court in the event of any mala fide or special humanitarian grounds being made out. None of the aforesaid situations arises in the present case and in any case is not made out. Further there is a presumption of the regularity of an official act, as the order of transfer also is. It has not even rebutted. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. From the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the restrain of consent of the Panchayati Raj Department on transfer of a "transferred employees" under the Act of 2011 does not obtain in the instant case, as the requisite consent for transfer of a transferred employee under the Rules of 2011 by the Panchayati Raj Institutions can be found in the Chief Secretary's order dated 16.6.2018 issued under the letter head of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. The restrain of consent of the Panchayati Raj Department thus removed, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's transfer after a period of about two years of service at Dholpur to Bharatpur cannot be impugned on any legally permissible ground. No mala fides are seriously alleged or made out in the petition. The transfer after two years is merely an incident of service and presumably in law--on account of public interest. 6. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, and contrarily is liable to be transferred from one place to other in the interest of better administration. The Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bos Vs. 6. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, and contrarily is liable to be transferred from one place to other in the interest of better administration. The Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bos Vs. State of Bihar [ AIR 1991 SC 532 ] has categorically held that the courts should not interfere with transfer orders unless they are established not to make in public interest and/or administrative reasons. As earlier held the petitioner has failed on his pleadings and requisite proof on the said tests. 7. I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.