ORDER :

The present bunch of 100 writ petitions, enlisted in the appended Schedule give rise to same issue, which shall be treated to be part and parcel of the order instant, are decided by a common order, however, the facts of SBCWP No.3299/2022: Anju Bala vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., are illustratively taken into consideration.

2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders passed by the respondents, whereby the petitioners have been directed to report to the office of Chief Medical and Health officer and subsequent thereto they have been accorded postings at the places different from where they were already working.

3. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioners, were posted at particular PHC/CHC or Sub-Centres, when the order dated 18.02.2022 was passed by the Secretary, inter-alia, indicating that for the purpose of providing good governance and looking to the general public interest, nursing staff working more than the posts sanctioned for the said place and whose salary was being drawn from the place other than where they were working, would report to the Chief Medical and Health Officer and give their option to said CM & HO, who shall post them appropriately.

4. The said order dated 18.02.2022 was endorsed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer to the respective Drawing and Disbursing authorities and the concerned employees and required that surplus women health workers be relieved for the office of CM & HO.

5. On 20.02.2022, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ratangarh, District Churu, also required that where on account of passing of interim orders by the Court more than one person is working on the same post, their list may also be sent.

6. Thereafter, on 21.02.2022, the Block CM & HO required the petitioners to report to the office of CM & HO and thereafter they have been accorded posting by order dated 25.02.2022.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioners from the place of their present posting by impugned orders are ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (“Rules of 2011”), inasmuch as the requisite consent, as required under the Rules, has not been taken by the respondents before effecting the transfer of the petitioners and therefore, the orders impugned are bad in law.

8. Reliance has been placed on the order in Samleta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11862/2017 decided on 14.11.2017, upheld in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Samleta : D.B.S.A.W. No.736/2018 decided on 11.10.2018 and Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents made vehement submissions that petitions deserve dismissal, inasmuch as from the perusal of the documents which have been placed on record, it is apparent that the respondents have taken the steps only with a view to provide good governance and in public interest. Submissions have been made that while at various places more than one person are working against the same post, at other places the posts are lying vacant and therefore, for the purpose of rationalizing the availability of the nursing staff at all the PHC/CHC and Sub Centres, the orders have been passed, which cannot be faulted.

10. It was also submitted that in fact the petitioners have not been transferred, they have simply been relocated on account of the fact that they were surplus at given place and therefore, in absence of any order of transfer, the Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 has no application.

11. Submissions have been made that vaccination drive of the State is going to commence and for that, the manpower is required at all the PHC/CHC and Sub Centres and in absence whereof the drive would be affected and on that count, the orders have been passed. Submissions were also made th