The court emphasized that compliance with transfer rules is mandatory, allowing ex-post facto consent to validate transfer orders while highlighting the need for humane considerations in administrative decisions.

Order :

1. Vide 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India, the Panchayati Raj Institution was significantly empowered by bringing 29 vital departments, as listed in the 11th Schedule, under its jurisdiction. In furtherance of the said constitutional mandate, the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan took an administrative decision to transfer certain activities, including financial resources and personnel, from the earlier respective departments to the Panchayati Raj Department. For smooth devolution of power, the State of Rajasthan also enacted the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, envisaging legal framework governing the transfer of State Government employees. Notably, Rule 8 of these rules explicitly stipulates the mode and manner of the transfer of employees.

2. In all the petitions, as per Appendix A, B and C of the instant order, common assertion is that not only the transfers of petitioners are in mechanical exercise of mind but also in blatant non-compliance of applicable Rules. Facts of individual cases are thus not being gone into, as what is under challenge herein simplicitor is the procedure, legality and the administrative propriety of the transfers/postings of the petitioners. Vide this common order, all the Appendix [(A) to (C)], ibid are being disposed of as similar issues are involved therein.

3. First and foremost, reference may be had to Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (for short 2011 Rules), in particular Rule 8 thereof, which reads as under:-

“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 Administration Establishment Committee of the Zila Parisad concerned from one Panchayat 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.”

Non compliance of sub rule (ii) and/or (iii), ibid is complained by the petitioners.

4. Some of the petitioners also allege violation of Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules). The said rule, for ready reference, is also reproduced hereinbelow:-

"31. Appointment to the service.-

Appointment to post(s) in the Service by direct recruitment or by promotion, as the case may be, shall be made by the Appointing Authority on occurrence of substantive vacancies from the candidates selected under rule 25 in order of merit and by promotion from the persons selected under rule 29 of these rules. The persons so appointed shall be transferable from one place to the other within the Scheduled Areas irrespective of the place of appointment taking the entire Scheduled Area as a Unit i.e. the entire Scheduled Area shall be the closed cadre. When a person so appointed cannot be transferred out side this closed cadre in any capacity which also includes deputation & reverse deputation."

5. Effectively thus, the bunch of petitions herein can be segregated into three categories, i.e.:-

(A) Those, where the petitioners (Appendix-A) are aggrieved by alleged violation of Rule 8 (ii) of the Rules of 2011, ibid contending that the District Establishment Committee of the ZilaSamiti has not passed the order while transferring them from one Panchayat Samiti to another within the same District.

(B) Where (Appendix-B) petitioners are aggrieved with alleged violation of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011, ibid, stating that consent of Panachayati Raj department has not been taken.

(C) Where, apart from alleged violation of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, transfers have been carried out either from TSP Area to Non-TSP Area or vice versa averring non compliance of Rule 31 of the R