Dilip Kumar Daranga vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 11/2/2019 (Annex.6), whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Kherwara-II (Rishabdev), Udaipur to Jhadol, Udaipur on vacant post.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner in ground (j) of the writ petition that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Rule 289 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules, 1996') inasmuch as without recommendation of the concerned Panchayat Samiti / Zila Parishad, the respondents have passed the order impugned, which is bad in law.

Further submissions have been made that on account of frequent transfers of the petitioner the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the order Annex.6 would indicate that the order has been passed by the Deputy Director (Administration), Jaipur i.e. the State Government. The provisions of Section 89 (8-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act, 1994') provides that the State Government may 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, whether within the same District or outside it, from one Zila Parishad to another Zila Parishad, or from a Panchayat Samiti to a Zila Parishad or from Zila Parishad to a Panchayat Samiti.

In view of the said provision and as the order impugned has been passed by the State Government, the provisions of Rule 289 of the Rules, 1996 would have no application and the said ground raised by the petitioner in this regard has no substance.

Insofar as the allegation regarding frequent transfers is concerned, for the said aspect the petitioner has to approach the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal as the said issue does not involve any jurisdictional aspect so as to bypass the said alternative remedy available to the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to question the validity of the order of transfer on account of alleged frequent transfers before the Tribunal.