Allowed

Vikas Muniya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CW/3019/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Patwari's transfer order dated 22.02.2024 lacked any specified posting location, violating Rule 9 of the 1957 Rules. Following a Co-ordinate Bench precedent, the court quashed the transfer order and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Transfer order dated 22.02.2024 qua petitioner quashed and set aside; writ petition allowed.

Vikas Muniya Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11697]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3019/2024

¶4

Vikas Muniya S/o Shri Badiya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Koi Doban, District Banswara Presently Posted At Kasarwadi, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Board Of Revenue, Through Director, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶9

The Director, Revenue Board, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 4. The District Collector, Banswara, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Tehsildar, Tehsil Sajjangarh, Banswara, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Piyush Bhandari for
	Mr. Praveen Khandelwal,AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Order

¶14

07/03/2024

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide impugned order dated 22.02.2024, the petitioner, who is working as a Patwari has been sought to be transferred from Patwar Halka Kasarwadi, Kushalgarh, District Banswara to District Sirohi without specifying the exact place of posting/Patwar Circle. Learned counsel submitted that the same is even otherwise, in contravention to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1957’).

[2024:RJ-JD:11697]

[CW-3019/2024]

(2 of 3)

In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.544/2021 (decided on 18.03.2021).

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Collector is very well empowered to pass appropriate order regarding place of posting after the transfer order having been passed by the Board of Revenue. Hence, even if the order impugned does not mention the specific place of posting, it can be taken care of by the Collector.

¶21

Heard the counsels. Perused the order impugned. 4. A perusal of the order impugned dated 22.02.2024 makes it clear that no specific place of posting has been mentioned in the same. While dealing with a similar situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajpal Singh’s case (supra), held that, even if the State or competent authority wishes to transfer a patwari from one place to another, he has to satisfy himself about the interest of efficiency of work or to fill the vacant post. The Court in the said matter, observed that a transfer made without indicating Patwar Circle or even Tehsil is enough to show lack of application of mind and hence, it cannot be inferred that the competent authority was aware of the present vacant position in the said district and that too, the requirement of petitioner’s efficiency in such Patwar Circle, for which his transfer was warranted.

¶22

The Court, in the said circumstances concluded as under :

¶23

“28. If the competent authority has not decided or was not aware, where the concerned patwari is to be transferred, it cannot be presumed that the

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:11697]

[CW-3019/2024]

competent authority has applied its mind towards the vacant position, falling vacant on account of exigencies mentioned in clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957. Nor can he be presumed to have ascertained that interest of efficiency of work required that petitioner should be transferred to a far flung place at Hanumangarh.”

¶28

In view of the above ratio which squarely covers the present matter, the order impugned dated 22.02.2024 qua the present petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition is hence, allowed .

¶29

Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of .

¶30

It is however made clear that the present order would not be termed to preclude the State Authorities from passing fresh orders, in terms of law.

¶31

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶32

39-T.Singh/-

Vikas Muniya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Muniya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nathulal Nanoma Vs the Director

Suraj Mal Maliwad Vs the Director

Natwer Singh Pagi Vs the Director

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Das Arora Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan