CW 9384/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9384/06 Hari Shankar Chaturvedi Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 08/09/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Anand Sharma, for petitioner Mr. J.K. Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel *** Petitioner while working as Gram Sevak was transferred vide order Ann.1 dt.15th July, 2006 from Panchayat Samiti Mandal [Bhilwara] to Panchayat Samiti Nimbhahera, District Chittorgarh and the order was stayed by this court on 4th December, 2006 on account of which at present he must be working at the present place of posting i.e. Panchayat Samiti Mandal, District Bhilwara. Counsel for petitioner submits that however the State Government vests with the competence to transfer in view of sub-section (8A) of Sec.89 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 where procedure provided under R.290 of the Rules has not been followed by the respondents. In absence whereof, the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner from one district to another is not sustainable. Submission made by counsel for petitioner is bereft of merit. CW 9384/06 [2] Sub-section (8A) of Sec.89 of the Act, 1994 is reproduced as under: “[8A] Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (8), the State Government may transfer any member of the service 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 Zila Parishad or from a Zila Parishad to a Panchayat Samiti, and may also stay the operation of, or cancel, any order of transfer made under sub-section (8) of the rules made thereunder.” The procedure provided under R.290 is only for calling upon the application, if member of service desires transfer. Sub-rule (2) of R.290 also empowers the State Government to transfer members of service and it is not based only on the application submitted by incumbent seeking transfer and the State Government if considers appropriate in the interest of administration or in exigency of service can certainly transfer member of service in terms of Sec.89(8A) of the Act. No malice has been imputed against the authority who has passed the order impugned. This court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA9384CW06 8-9.doc