JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. Though the matter comes up on board for consideration of application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, seeking vacation of interim order dated 13.01.2021, but the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties were in unison that the matter be decided finally, as the arguments on the application for vacating interim order will take as much time as the arguments of final hearing of the matter would.

2. Hence, the matter was finally heard.

3. The petitioner - a Patwari at the relevant time was posted in Patwar Mandal Akadali, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer, when he was subjected to transfer vide order dated 31.12.2020.

4. The basic plank on which the petitioner has assailed his transfer has been, that under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1957"), the State Government cannot transfer a Patwari, sans his own request.

5. Before the arguments could even be opened, Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that vide recent amendment brought in force on 24.11.2020, Rule 9 of Rules of 1957 has been amended and words "on his own request" have been obliterated; as a result whereof, the State can now transfer a Patwari as per provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules even in absence of request made by concerned Patwari.

6. Mr. Mathur fairly conceded that after the amendment being introduced, his basic argument that the State Government cannot transfer the petitioner - a Patwari, from one District to another without his own request, has lost its force, rather very foundation, but argued that regardless of State's power to transfer a Patwari under Rule 9, the State is not absolved of the obligation to follow mandate of clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957. The competent authority has to satisfy himself about the requirement or need of transfer before subjecting a Patwari to transfer, he emphasised.

7. It was also argued that may be after the amendment in Rule 9, the State has been empowered to transfer a Patwari after the amendment brought into effect vide notification dated 24.11.2020, however there is no corresponding amendment brought in Rule 412 and thus, the State Govt. is bound by the provisions contained under Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957.

8. Inviting Court's attention towards Rule 9 and 412 of the Rules of 1957, Mr. Mathur argued that the competent authority or the State Government cannot normally transfer a Patwari, unless it is satisfied that the transfer is necessary in the interest of efficiency of work or to fill up the vacancy created by long leave, resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of the Patwari etc.

9. Learned counsel submitted that even Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957 makes the transfer subject to conditions mentioned in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 and, thus, conditions contained in clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 have to be satisfied before subjecting a Patwari to transfer.

10. Highlighting the nature of duties and job responsibilities, he contended that transfers of Patwari as a routine are not desirable. In support of such stand, heavy reliance was placed upon the judgment dated 28.11.2006, rendered in the case of Inder Singh vs. State of Raj.; reported in (2007) 1 RLW(Raj.) 737.

11. Having made above legal submission, learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the basic fact, rather the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue and argued that so far as petitioner is concerned, a simple indication has been made that he is transferred from Patwar Mandal Akadali, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer to District Hanumangarh. With an expression of astonishment he argued that the competent authority who subjected the petitioner to transfer, was not even aware as to whether any post is lying vacant or has become vacant or any exigency has arisen in a particular Patwar Circle, so that the petitioner is/was required, yet he has transferred the Patwari in