CW 1584/10 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1584/10 Balveer Singh Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 10/02/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. H.V. Nandwana, for petitioner *** Petitioner is presently working as Gram Sevak on being transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Tonk to Panchayat Samiti, Osia, District Jodhpur for administrative reason by the State Government in exercise of power u/s.89(8-A) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 vide order dt.21st October, 2009, preferred appeal before Tribunal, which was rejected vide order dt.23rd December, 2009. Counsel submits that transfer is also a mode of recruitment under sub-sec.(5) of Sec.89 of the Act and unless there are cogent reasons, the Government could not be said to be justified in invoking its power u/s.89(8-A) of the Act, 1994. Counsel further submits that the cadre is ultimately controlled at the level of Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad. Ordinarily there cannot be any justification to transfer an employee outside Zila Parishad since it affects his seniority and further avenues of promotion which are available to employee under the Rules, 1996. CW 1584/10 [2] Submission made by Counsel is of no substance for the reason that the State Government holds power to transfer u/s.89(8-A) of the Act of a member of service from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti or from one Zila Parishad to other or Panchayati Samiti and in the instant case, the petitioner has been transferred by the State Government in exercise of power u/s.89(8-A) of the Act, 1994. As regards submission made by Counsel in regard to his seniority being affected. Suffice it to say that as per R.291(ii) Rajasthan Panchayati Rules, 1996, seniority is to be fixed on the basis of his continuous length of substantive service and remained protected. It is not the case where the petitioner has alleged any malice against the authority or violation of statute. In absence whereof, their action cannot be said to be arbitrary which may call for interference. Apart from it, the Tribunal has also observerd that since May, 2001 the petitioner remained posted in District Tonk and has been transferred after more than 8 yrs. The authority is always justified in taking decision of CW 1584/10 [3] transfer, if required, in the interest of administration. So far as order dt.24th February, 2007 is concerned, the State Government has directed its Subordinate Officers that if Gram Sevak is to be transferred outside the District, they may seek prior permission from higher authority, but when the order itself has been passed by the State Government. There appears to be no justification in seeking prior permission from the authority with whom the power has been vested under the Act. This Court did not find any manifest error being committed by the learned Tribunal in passing order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1584CW10 10-02.doc