Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 513 (RAJ)

Kishan Lal Suthar v. State of Rajasthan

2024-03-27

ARUN MONGA

body2024
ORDER : Mr. Arun Monga, J. - Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 22.02.2024, vide which petitioner has been transferred from Patwar Mandal Thamla Tehsil Ghasa to Patwar Mandal Boyna Tehsil Mavli against vacant position, he has filed the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy and Rule 9 and Rule 412 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957. He submits that the petitioner has been transferred before expiry of two years, which is in contravention to the circular as issued by the State Government, which provides that a Patwari cannot ordinarily be transferred before a period of two years from one place of posting. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgments rendered in Rajpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.544/2021, decided on 18.03.2021 and Inder Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: reported in (2007) 1 RLW (Raj.) 737. 4. Per contra, my attention has been drawn to a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dal Chand Jat v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3112/2024, decided on 05.03.2024. The relevant part of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:- "5. So far as the ground of the order impugned being in contravention to Rule 9 & Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957 is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopalram v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. : D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.53/2020 (decided on 28.01.2020) in identical circumstances and while analysing the said two provisions held as under:- "12. Coming to the contention of the appellant that the transfer order issued by the District Collector is violative of provisions of Rule 9 (ii) and Rule 412, a conjoint reading of Rule 9 and Rule 412 indicates that a Patwari should not be ordinarily transferred, but then, he can always be transferred when considered necessary in the interest of efficiency of work or to fill up vacancy created by long leave, resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of the Patwari. Suffice it to say that besides for administrative exigency, a Patwari can be transferred even to fill up the vacant post created on account of various contingencies enumerated. Suffice it to say that besides for administrative exigency, a Patwari can be transferred even to fill up the vacant post created on account of various contingencies enumerated. Thus, on account of administrative exigency, inter-alia to fill up the vacant posts, if number of employees holding the post of Patwaris are transferred within the District, in no manner, it can be said that the order impugned passed by the District Collector without recording the satisfaction regarding necessity in the interest of efficiency of work, is violative of provisions of Rule 9 (ii) and Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957. As a matter of fact, the order impugned by itself reflects that the transfers have been effected for administrative exigency to fill up the vacant posts. 13. Admittedly, the transfer of a Patwari from one place to another within the Sub-Division, District, Division or State is regulated by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 which nowhere restricts the transfer of a Patwari prior to completion of a particular period of posting at a particular place. The circular/instructions issued by the State Government providing for transfer of Patwari after completion of the tenure of two years, are in the nature of guidelines not enforceable and cannot be construed in the manner suggested so as to put absolute restriction on the power to be exercised by the authorities enumerated under Rule 9 to transfer a Patwari for administrative exigency or other contingencies specified. In other words, notwithstanding the instructions issued by the State Government as aforesaid, the authority empowered can transfer a Patwari at any time for administrative exigency in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. It is a different matter that even otherwise in absence of administrative exigency, an employee holding the transferable post cannot be frequently transferred by his employer at his whims and fancy, but on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in no manner, it can be inferred that the appellant has been transferred without there being any administrative exigency and it is not even the case of the appellant that he has been subjected to frequent transfer." 6. Deciding on the touchstone of the ratio as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopalram (supra), it is clear that the petitioner has been transferred qua a vacant post. Deciding on the touchstone of the ratio as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopalram (supra), it is clear that the petitioner has been transferred qua a vacant post. Meaning thereby, it is totally in consonance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 whereby a Collector is authorised to transfer a Patwari to fill up a vacancy. 7. In view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Gopalram (supra), this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. The present writ petition is hence, dismissed." 5. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. Also, in the facts of the present case, both the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable. 6. In view of the judgment passed in Dal Chand (supra) rendered by following the ratio as laid down in the case of Gopalram (supra), this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. 7. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. 8. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.