Rajasthan High Court: In a series of petitions challenging the State Government’s mass transfer orders of Panchayati Raj officials in Rajasthan, arguing that these transfers undermined the autonomy of Panchayati Raj institutions and did not adhere to established legal and procedural norms, a single-judge bench Arun Monga, J*., set aside the impugned transfer orders. The Court reaffirmed the principles of decentralized governance and the need for procedural adherence in transfers. The Court held that:
Transfer orders must specify both the originating and destination locations to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary transfers.
The consultation requirement under Section 89(8)(ii) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 must be honored to maintain the balance of power between the State Government and Panchayati Raj institutions.
The State Government should not undermine the autonomy of Panchayati Raj institutions through mass transfers without proper justification and adherence to procedural norms.
Factual Matrix
The instant matter involved a series of petitions filed by various Panchayati Raj officials in Rajasthan, including Village Development Officers (VDOs), Assistant Administrative Officers, Gram Sewaks, LDCs, Junior Assistants, Junior Technical Assistants, and Gram Vikas Adhikaris. The officials preferred the instant writ petition challenging the transfer orders issued between February and March 2024 by different authorities, including the State Government and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of Zila Parishads.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners argued that the transfer orders must specify the place of posting and the absence of such specification renders the orders invalid. It was contended that the transfer orders are alleged to suffer from non-application of mind, as many officials were transferred without specified postings. It was contended that the transfers are made by the CEO or BDO without consulting the Pradhan or Pramukh, as required by Section 89(8)(ii) of the Panchayat Raj Act and therefore are invalid. It was argued that the DEC must recommend transfers, if not the CEO’s orders will be considered as passed beyond jurisdiction and invalid. It was argued that some transfer orders were made beyond the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, such as CEOs transferring officials to different districts. It was further contended that the transfer orders which were issued during a period when transfers were banned are invalid.
The State argued that the State has unbridled power to transfer Panchayati Raj officials and can delegate this power to CEOs and BDOs. It was contended that the State’s approach of specifying officials for transfer while delegating the specific posting locations to CEOs is valid. The State claimed that they have complied with relevant rules, including Section 89(8A) of the Panchayat Raj Act, which grants it broad powers to issue transfer orders. It was argued that the consultation requirement with Pradhans or Pramukhs is directory, not mandatory, and does not require written documentation. It was stated that the term “appointment” in Section 89(8)(ii) of the Panchayat Raj Act is interpreted to distinguish between fresh appointments and routine postings, with the latter not requiring extensive consultation. It was argued that though most transfer orders specify the place of posting, but any exceptions to the same do not warrant judicial interference.
Moot Point
Does the omission to mention a specific location of Gram Panchayat for a Panchayat Samiti official’s new duty station invalidate a transfer order?
Is an appointment by transfer without consulting the Pradhans or Pramukhs of the involved Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad legally valid?
Can the Chief Executive Officer of a Zila Parishad independently issue a transfer order within the Zila Parishad?
Are BDOs/VDOs authorized to independently transfer Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti?
Is the recommendation of the District Administration and Establishment Committee necessary for transfer of an employee within a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad by the Chief Executive Officer of a Zila Parishad?
What is the legislative intent and scope of the State’s power under the non-obstante clause in Section 89(8)(A) of the Panchayat Raj Act, as amended by Act No. 23/1994 in Rajasthan?
Interim Order
The Court granted interim relief by staying the operation and effect of the impugned transfer orders. The transfer orders were found to violate statutory provisions and administrative instructions. The Court directed the Secretary of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department to join the proceedings via video conferencing to provide administrative views on the issue.
Court’s Analysis
The Court stated that the Panchayati Raj, or village self-rule, as envisioned by Mahatma Gandhi, aims at decentralized governance, empowering villages as autonomous units. This concept was enshrined in the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, emphasizing grassroots democracy and local self-governance. Articles , , , , and of the establishes a robust system for decentralized governance, mandating the independence of Panchayati Raj institutions from excessive political and bureaucratic interference. The Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 establishes Panchayats under Section 9 and Panchayat Samitis under Section 10, assigning them significant administrative functions, including primary education administration as per Section 51. Section 89 of the Panchayati Raj Act provides a comprehensive framework for managing Panchayati Raj officials, detailing their duties, promotions, transfers, and pension entitlements and Section 89(8A) allows the State Government to issue transfer orders without adhering to other procedural safeguards in Sections 1 to 8. The Court stated that the State Government should oversee rather than directly interfere with Panchayat affairs, respecting the autonomy intended by the Constitution of India.
Omission of specific location in transfer order
The Court stated that the absence of specific transfer locations in the orders raises questions about the administrative need and possible misuse of power. The Court opined that transfers must be justified by genuine administrative exigency and clearly specify the new duty location.
“If the transferring authority is unaware of the required destination of the transferred official, the motive for transfer becomes questionable. It raises concerns about the possible misuse of administrative discretion or punitive intentions.”
Is transfer without consulting Pradhans/Pramukhs legally valid?
The Court stated that the consultation under Section 89(8)(ii) of the Panchayat Raj Act serves two purposes (i) to uphold self-governance in panchayats, and (ii) to manage human resources effectively when direct recruits or promotees are unavailable. It should not be wholly disregarded, even if it is not equated with consent. The Court held that the consultation under Section 89(8)(ii) of the Panchayat Raj Act is essential and should not be disregarded so that Pradhans and Pramukhs are not bypassed.
Can the Chief Executive Officer or BDOs/VDOs independently issue a transfer order?
The Court stated that the CEO/Additional CEO can issue transfer orders only under State Government instructions, not independently. The Court further stated that the BDOs/VDOs are not authorized to independently order an appointment by transfer of Panchayat officials within the Panchayat Samiti without consulting the Pradhans or Pramukhs of the involved Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad. The Court held that the CEO/BDO/Vikas Adhikari cannot independently transfer Panchayat officials without following proper consultation and recommendations.
Is recommendation of the District Administration and Establishment Committee necessary for transfer of an employee?
The Court held that the recommendation of the District Administration and Establishment Committee is necessary for the transfer of employees by the CEO of a Zila Parishad himself within a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad. “But, if the District Establishment Committee/Standing Committee disagrees on such transfer, the CEO/Vikas Adhikari can follow the State Government’s instructions.”
State’s power under Section 89(8)(A) of the Panchayat Raj Act
The Court noted that the legislative intent of State’s power under Section 89(8)(A) of the Panchayat Raj Act, emphasised on the decentralisation and the autonomy of Panchayati Raj institutions, with the State Government’s powers being exercised sparingly and transparently. The Court referenced to State of Rajasthan v. Mool Shahker, Chandra Kanta v. State of Rajasthan, and Murari Lal v. State of Rajasthan, where it was highlighted the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures and the limited scope of the State’s power to issue transfer orders without undermining Panchayati Raj institutions. The Court held that while the State Government has overriding powers under Section 89(8-A) of the Panchayati Raj Act, these powers must be exercised within the legal framework, respecting the autonomy of Panchayati Raj institutions.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned transfer orders, and issued guidelines to ensure compliance with procedural norms and uphold the autonomy of Panchayati Raj institutions. The Court directed the State Government to reissue transfer orders only if genuine administrative exigencies were demonstrated and within the parameters set by the Court.
[Kera Ram v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2909/2024, order dated 30-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki, Mr. Praveen Karwa, Mr. Manoj Kumar Pareek, Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi, Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha, Mr. Pawan Singh, Mr. Rakesh Matoria, Mr. Mahendra Singh Godara, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr. Vinod Jhajharia (through VC), Mr. Kaushal Sharma, Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Mr. Jay Prakash, Mr. Mukesh Vyas, Mr. Jagatveer Singh, Mr. N.R. Budania, Mr. Govind Lal, Mr. Sachin Saraswat (through VC), Ms. Saroj Patel, Mr. Hemant Dutt, Mr. Ramawatar Singh, Mr. VLS Rajpurohit, Mr. Sushil Solanki, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, Mr. Hanuman Singh, Mr. Sunil Purohit, Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal, Mr. D.S. Pidiyar, Mr. Shailendra Gwala, Mr. Shree Kant Verma, Mr. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Pritam Joshi, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Poonia, Mr. Jassa Ram, Mr. Sumer Singh Gour, Mr. Hemant Shrimali, Mr. M.R. Khatri, Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla, Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat, Mr. Rishabh Tayal, Mr. P.R. Kumawat, Mr. K.L Chouhan, Mr. O.P.. Sangwa, Mr. Bheru Lal Jat, Mr. Devendra Sanwalot, Mr. Hapu Ram, Mr. Kamlesh Choudhary, Mr. Tanwar Singh, Mr. Manish Dadhich, Mr. Sandeep Kalwaniya, Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary, Mr. Chandraveer Singh, Mr. Shardul Singh, Mr. O.P. Kumawat, Mr. Jitendra Choudhary, Mr. Virendra Acharya, Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, Mr. Nikhil Bhandari, Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG, Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi, Mr. Lalit Pareek, Mr. Rajdeep Singh, Mr. Sanjay Nahar, Mr. H.S. Chundawat, Counsel for the Respondents
D.B.S.A.W. No. 683/2021, order dated 14-01-2022
SBCWP No.14638/2019, order dated 20-01-2020
SBCWP No.3595/2017, order dated 07-09-2017
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .