The Court, relying on a coordinate bench order in Samleta (supra), disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned transfer order dated 15.9.2017 against the petitioner, as it was made without the requisite consent.
The impugned transfer order dated 15th September, 2017, against the petitioner is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 7037/2018
Mohini Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Garssa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, G. C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
04/04/2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical controversy has already been examined by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Samleta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; SBCWP No. 11862/2017, decided on 14th November, 2017, wherein transfer was made by the Competent Authority in violation of Rule 8(iii) of Rajasthan Panchyati Raj (Transfer Activities) Rules, 2011 (for short, Rules of 2011).
It is further pointed out that name of Ms. Samleta appeared in the same impugned order dated 15th September, 2017, at serial No. 86 and the petitioners are also included in the same impugned order 15th September, 2017. A copy of the writ application was furnished to the counsel for the State-respondents by the counsel for the petitioner.
The factual matrix as to non-compliance of contemplation under Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011, could not be disputed by Mr. Khushal Singh, assistant to Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, G. C.
In the case of Samleta (supra), the Coordinate Bench, while dealing with the same impugned order, observed thus:
“8. Transfer:- Transfer of such transferred employees shall be made under the transfer policy and directions
[CW-7037/2018]
(2 of 2)
issued by the State Government from time to time, by:(i) the Administration and Establishment Committee of the Panchyat Samiti concerned within the same Panchayat Samiti.
(ii) the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad concerned from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same District.
(iii) the department Concerned from one district to another district with the consent of the Panchayat Raj Department.”
For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the opinion of the Coordinate Bench, this Court is not inclined to take a different view.
In the result, writ petition succeed and is hereby disposed off quashing the transfer order dated 15th September, 2017, qua the petitioner.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J
Pooja/196
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the coordinate bench's order quashing a transfer made in violation of Rajasthan Panchyati Raj Rules must be followed.
Whether consent of the Panchayati Raj Department was required for the ANM's inter-district transfer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Samleta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶12
Samleta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; SBCWP No. 11862/2017
Mohini Devi
State Of Raj
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
