JUDGMENT :

MEHTA, J.

1. The instant bunch of 91 intra court appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.284/2022 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rekha Kumari) has been preferred by State of Rajasthan for assailing the common impugned order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench accepting 99 writ petitions [led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3299/2022 – Anju Bala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]. Details of the intra court appeals and the writ petitions are mentioned in the Schedule appended to this judgment.

2. The basic controversy involved in these appeals is as to whether the employees, whose parent cadre is Medical and Health Department and whose services have been provided to the Panchayati Raj institution can be transferred by the Medical and Health Department without following the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2011’), which reads as below:-

“8. Transfer.-Transfer of such transferred employees shall be made under the transfer policy and directions issued by the State Government from time to time, by:-

i. “the Administration and Establishment Committee of the Panchayat Samiti concerned within the same Panchayat Samiti.

ii. the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same District.

iii. the department concerned from one district to another district with the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department.”

3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Samleta [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.736/2018 decided on 11.10.2018] took a view that as per Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, when an employee, whose services are governed by the Panchayati Raj Act, is proposed to be transferred from one district to another, there is a prerequisite condition of obtaining prior consent of Panchayati Raj Department irrespective of the fact that the employee is surplus in the Panchayati Raj Department. This court is apprised that the State of Rajasthan has assailed the Division Bench order in the case of Samleta (supra) before Hon’ble the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.41290/2019 which is pending.

4. In the cases of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mool Shankar [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.683/2021] and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Krishna Devi [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.17/2022] decided on 14.01.2022, involving identical controversy, Division Bench of this Court proceeded to reiterate the view taken in the case of Samleta (supra) and held that while effecting inter-district transfers of the employees transferred to the Panchayati Raj Department, the powers are retained by the department concerned, but in all such cases, the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department has to be obtained. Such requirement of consent cannot be brought down to a mere formality by suggesting that the same is not mandatory but directory in nature. At the same time, the Hon’ble Division Bench noticed that this requirement has brought about a grim situation. The administration is saddled with two employees against one vacant post in some cases and in some cases the posts are lying vacant without anybody looking after it. The court felt that even if the situation has been brought about on account of administrative errors, a way out of this impasse is required to be found particularly looking to the great challenges that the Government administration in general and the Health Department in particular is facing due to recent third wave of Corona virus. Observing this, the court went on to hold that there was no limitation or inhibition under the Rules by virtue of which, the ex-post facto consent of the Panchayati Raj Department can not be obtained. It was observed as below :-

“In this context, we do not find any limitation or inhibition under the Rules by virtue of which the ex-post facto consent of