INDERJEET SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: NUPUR BHATI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2025-01-30. INDERJEET SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2025:RJ-JD:5951] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2404/2025 Inderjeet Singh S/o Shri Preetam Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Vpo 42H, Tehsil Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar. At Present Working As Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat 1 Lm, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Addl. Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary-I, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar. 4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Rathore. For Respondent(s) : Mr. I. R. Choudhary, AAG. Mr. Kuldeep Solanki. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order 30/01/2025 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in-volved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment/order dated 23. 01. 2025 passed in SBCWP No. 1311/2025: Hardev Paliwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , wherein, the transfer order has been quashed and set aside. 2. Relevant portion of the judgment/order passed on 23. 01. 2025 is reproduced as under:- [2025:RJ-JD:5951] (2 of 2) [CW-2404/2025] “5. In the premise, writ petitions as numbered above are allowed. The respective impugned transfer orders qua the petitioners are set aside. 6. However, liberty is granted to pass fresh orders by spec-ifying the name of the Gram Panchayat where the incum-bents are supposed to join after transfer in case, work exi-gency so warrants, in accordance with Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act,1994 read with the judgment rendered in Kera Ramibid. 7. At this stage, Mr. I. R.
Choudhary, learned Additional Ad-vocate General submits that passing of the fresh orders requires prior sanction from the competent authority in view of the ban imposed by the Chief Secretary vide an administrative order dated 03. 01. 2024. In view thereof, in order to obviate any procedural hurdle, it is made clear that since the transfer orders are being quashed vide man-damus of this Court, thus taking fresh administrative deci-sion qua the petitioners shall be construed to be in contin-uation of the earlier transfer order. No prior sanction would thus be required in terms of the circular dated 03. 01. 2024 issued by the Chief Secretary. 8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the same. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned transfer order dated 15. 01. 2025 (Annex. 2) is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner with liberty to pass fresh orders. 5.
Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dis- posed of. (DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 144-pradeep/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.