Allowed

Firoz Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Sept 2022CW/6930/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur examined a writ petition challenging the transfer of a panel lawyer-cum-legal advisor from Balotra to Sanchore. The court held that panel lawyers are not state employees and cannot be transferred against their wishes. The impugned transfer order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21.02.2022 transferring the petitioner to the Municipal Board, Sanchore was set aside.

Firoz Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6930/2022

¶3

Firoz Khan S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Behind Garib Nawaz Maszid Ward No. 28, Balotara, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary / Director Of Local Self Development Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with Mr. Pranjul Mehta

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Order

¶11

16/09/2022

¶12

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was appointed as a panel lawyer-cum-legal advisor for the Municipal Board, Balotra vide order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the Director, Local Self Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶13

Vide order dated 21.02.2022, the petitioner has been removed as a panel lawyer-cum-legal advisor for the Municipal Board, Balotra and appointed as a panel lawyer-cum-legal advisor for the Municipal Board, Sanchore, District Jalore.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been removed as a panel lawyer-cum-legal advisor from the Municipal Board, Balotra and appointed at the Municipal Board, Sanchore, Distt. Jalore at the instance of the local MLA. It is further submitted that the petitioner is practicing in Balotara since 2013 and is a permanent resident of Balotara and the

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CW-6930/2022]

¶17

respondents have no authority to appoint him as a panel lawyercum-legal advisor of a Municipal Board of a place, where the petitioner is not residing and practicing. It is also submitted that action of the respondents of appointing the petitioner as a panel lawyer-cum-legal advisor of the Municipal Board, Sanchore is absolutely illegal.

¶18

Reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that as the local MLA of the area is not satisfied with the work of the petitioner, on his recommendations, he has been removed as a panel lawyer-cumlegal advisor of the Municipal Board, Balotara and is appointed at the Municipal Board, Sanchore.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court of the opinion that panel lawyer of any department or local self bodies cannot be termed as an employee of the State Government. If the State is not satisfied with the work of the panel lawyer, it can very well remove him from their panel, but cannot appoint/transfer him at any other place against the wishes of a panel lawyer.

¶20

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 is absolutely illegal and is liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 21.2.2022 is set aside.

¶21

The State Government is free to act in accordance with law. Stay petition is disposed of.

¶22

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶23

24-Arun/-

Firoz Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Raj

Prakash Sharma Vs R. Venkateshwaran

Radha Krishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Ladu Lal Gurjar Vs Nandlal

Career Bridge Academy Vs Dy. Director, Employees State Ins. Corp.

Kanchan Vs Union of India