Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 430 (RAJ)

Ramesh Kumar Prajapat v. State of Rajasthan

2023-02-06

ARUN BHANSALI

body2023
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 11/1/2023 (Annex.P/5), whereby, the petitioner, a Gram Vikas Adhikari, has been transferred to Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri, Panchayat Samiti - Pindwara, District Sirohi, order dated 13/1/2023 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi, which has been passed pursuant to the order dated 11/1/2023 and office order dated 17/1/2023 (Annex.P/8), whereby, the petitioner has been relieved from the office of Panchayat Samiti, Revdar, District Sirohi for joining at Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that initially by order dated 8/4/2021 (Annex.P/1), the petitioner had been transferred from Gram Panchayat, Vasan, Panchayat Samiti - Abu Road, Sirohi. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No. 9495/2021, wherein, on 28/7/2021, while issuing notice, interim order was granted by a coordinate Bench of this Court staying the operation of the order dated 8/4/2021 and relieving order dated 20/7/2021. Whereafter, by order dated 21/6/2022 (Annex.P/3) the petitioner was given additional charge of Gram Panchayat, Marole and on 14/11/2022, the charge of Gram Panchayat, Vasan was directed to be handed over to one Doongar Singh vide Annex.P/4. Whereafter, impugned order dated 11/1/2023 (Annex.P/5) was issued ordering for transfer of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted that as already an interim order granted in CWP No. 9495/2021 was in currency against the transfer of the petitioner, the order impugned could not have been issued by the respondents. 4. Further submissions have been made that the petitioner has been shown to have been transferred from Gram Panchayat, Marole, Panchayat Samiti - Revdar to Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri, whereas, the petitioner only had the additional charge of Panchayat Samiti, Marole and, therefore, the impugned order on that count also is bad. 5. It was emphasized that the order dated 11/1/2023 was issued by the Additional Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department requiring the Chief Executive Officer to pass order as per law and as the provisions of Section 89 (8) (ii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (’the Act, 1994’) have not been followed inasmuch as no consultation with the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti was held before passing the order impugned, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the State made submissions that the pleas raised by the petitioner has no basis inasmuch as the Court in CWP No. 9495/2021 had stayed the operation of the order as it was prima facie found that the Director, Panchayati Raj, who had issued the order dated 8/4/2021, had no jurisdiction and, therefore, the present order, which has been passed by the State Government cannot be questioned on that count. 7. Further submissions have been made that the order dated 11/1/2023 was issued by the State Government, which is governed by the provisions of Section 89 (8-A) of the Act, 1994, wherein, no such consultation is required. 8. Further submissions have been made that as by order dated 4/11/2022 (Annex.P/4), the charge of Gram Panchayat, Vasan was already taken from the petitioner and petitioner was holding the charge of Gram Panchayat, Marole only, indicating his transfer from Gram Panchayat, Marole to Gram Panchayat Thandi Beri cannot be faulted. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The order dated 8/4/2021 which came to be stayed in CWP No. 9495/2021 was passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, therefore, a coordinate bench of this Court on 28/7/2021 stayed the operation of the said order noticing the contention that the Director had no jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner. 11. Passing of the said order had nothing to do with the fact as to whether the petitioner could be transferred from his place of posting, as the issue raised in the earlier writ petition pertained to jurisdiction of the Director. In the present case, the order impugned has been passed by the Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and, therefore, it cannot be said that on account of passing of the earlier interim order by this Court, the present order could not have been passed by the competent authority. 12. In the present case, the order impugned has been passed by the Addl. Commissioner and Joint Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and, therefore, it cannot be said that on account of passing of the earlier interim order by this Court, the present order could not have been passed by the competent authority. 12. Submissions made that as the petitioner was holding the additional charge of Gram Panchayat, Marole, therefore, he could not have been transferred from Gram Panchayat, Marole to Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri, apparently has no substance inasmuch as while the petitioner was working at Gram Panchayat, Vasan, he was given additional charge of Gram Panchayat, Marole by order dated 21/6/2022 (Annex.P/3), whereafter, the charge of Gram Panchayat, Vasan was taken from the petitioner on 14/11/2022 (Annex.P/1) and the petitioner was left with the charge of Gram Panchayat, Marole only and, therefore, the indication made in the order transferring the petitioner from Gram Panchayat, Marole to Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri cannot be faulted. 13. The submission made that provision of Section 89 (8)(ii) of the Act, 1994 have not been followed, therefore, the order impugned is bad is equally baseless. 14. A perusal of the provisions of Section 89 (8-A) would reveal that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (8), the State Government has been conferred power to transfer any member of the service from any place of posting to any other place of posting whether within the same Panchayat Samiti or from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti or from one Zila Parishad to another Zila Parishad and, therefore, passing of the order by the State Government, which power is notwithstanding the stipulation made in sub-section (8) cannot be faulted. 15. 15. Submission made that as the order dated 11/1/2023 (Annex.P/5) indicates that the Chief Executive Officer would pass order in accordance with law necessarily means that he was required to follow the provisions of Section 89(8) (ii) of the Act, 1994 has been noticed for rejection only inasmuch as a perusal of the order reveals that the same is self contained, wherein, place of transfer of petitioner from Gram Panchayat, Marole to Gram Panchayat, Thandi Beri has specifically been indicated and the only requirement as indicated in the order was to match the establishment related information of transferred employee and to take into consideration the notes appended to the said order and, therefore, it cannot be said that the use of word ’fu;ekuqlkj’ would mean to follow the requirement of Section 89 (8) (ii) of the Act, 1994. 16. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.