1. - In this batch of writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule appended to this order, the validity of Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 and Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 has been challenged.

2. For the convenient disposal of the these writ petitioner, the facts of Chhagan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2658 of 1989) and Prem Kishan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1972 of 1990) are taken into consideration. In Chhagan Lal's case, the petitioner was a resident of Sirohi and he was working as a Naka Grard in the Municipal Board, Sirohi. He was transferred to the Municipal Board, Abu Road by order of the Secretary, Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan dated 29-7-1989. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Class IV Service) Rules, 1964 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1964') being ultra vires of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1959').

3. In Prem Kishan's case, the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector on temporary basis in the Municipal Board, Sirohi. The Services of the petitioner was extended from time to time by the orders of the Director, Local Self Department. The initial appointment of the petitioner as Sanitary Inspector was in the Municipal Board, Sirohi. The Secretary, Local self Government Department issued a general order of transfer dated 25-4-1990. whereby the petitioner's services were ordered to the transferred to Municipal Board, Sunel, District Jhalawar. Therefore, by this writ petition the petitioner has challenged his transfer so also the validity of Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called as the 'the Rules of 1963').

4. In both these writ petition as well as in this batch of writ petition mentioned in the Schedule appended to this order, the question involved is the validity of Rule 38 of the Rules of 1963 and the Rule 20 of the Rules of 1964. Therefore, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy in issue in these writ petitions, the relevant provisions of Rules of 1963 and the Rules of 1964 are reproduced below:-

6. Rule 38 of the Rules of 1963 reads as under:

"38. Transfer of member of the service from one Board to the other.-(1) Persons appointed to the service may be transferred from the Board to the other in the same grade and category when considered necessary, of the service.

(2) Such transfer shall be made by the Director in case of transfer from one Board to the other in the same district and by the State Government in case of transfer from a Board in one district to a Board in another district."

7. Rules 20 of the Rules of 1964 reads as under:

"20. Transfer of a Member of the service from one Board to the another-Persons appointed to the service may be transferred from one Board to another in the same grade and category when considered necessary for the efficiency of the service, by the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan."

8. The principal submission of all the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that both these rules have been framed under the purported exercise of the powers conferred Under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 297 read with Section 88 of the Act of 1959, but the parent rules does not confer any power on the Government to frame the rules for transfer of one incumbent from one municipality to another municipality. It has been contended that each Municipal Board is an autonomous body and transferring one incumbent from one municipality to another amounts to termination of the services of the incumbent from one municipality and appointing him in another municipality against the wishes of that employee. It was contended that a master cannot be chang