GOPALRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 3.1.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the legality of the transfer order dated 21.9.19 issued by the District Collector (Land Record), Hanumangarh, transferring the appellant holding the post of Patwari, from Amarpura Rathhan, Tehsil Pilibanga to 4AMP, Tehsil Sangaria, has been dismissed.

(2.) Precisely, it was contended by the appellant before the learned Single Judge that as per mandate of provisions of Rule 9 (ia) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules of 1957'), the District Collector may transfer a Patwari anywhere within the district only under the directions of the State Government and thus, the order impugned issued by the District Collector on his own, without there being any direction of the State Government, is without jurisdiction. It was further contended that as per mandate of provisions of Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957, the transfer of Patwari is ordinarily undesirable and can only be made under the conditions given in Rule 9(ii) of the Rules of 1957, which requires the authority concerned to satisfy himself that such transfer is necessary in the interest of efficiency of work and thus, the order of transfer issued without recording such satisfaction is bad in law.

(3.) The learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that under Rule 9(ia), the power of transfer within sub division has been conferred on the Sub Divisional Officer and the power to transfer anywhere within the district has been conferred on the District Collector. The proviso to the main provision of Rule 9(ia) which stipulates that the State Government may direct the District Collector for transfer of Patwari anywhere within the district in no manner restrict the power of District Collector to effect transfer within the district. The learned Single Judge opined that the proviso merely empowers the State Government also to direct the District Collector to transfer a Patwari anywhere within the district but it cannot be construed to mean that the power can be exercised by the District Collector only on direction of the State Government. According to the learned Single Judge any other interpretation would render the main provision incorporated redundant. Regarding the contention of the appellant that transfer has been made without indicating the necessity in the interest of efficiency of work, learned Single Judge after due consideration of the provisions of Rule 9(ii) and Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957, opined that the transfer can be made besides for necessity in the interest of efficiency of work also for filling up vacancies created by long leave, resignation, suspension or transfer of Patwari and thus, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant regarding the violation of the provisions of Rule 9 (ii) read with Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957, has also been negated by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge while noticing the factual aspect of the matter that large number of transfers have been effected inter alia to fill up the vacancies for administrative reasons, held that the impugned transfer order issued cannot be said to be violative of Rule 9(ii) and Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957 as also the dictum of this Court in the matter of Suresh Kumar Jusot vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.4014/08, decided on 3.12.08, relied upon by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein.