JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact and as such it would he proper to dispose them of by a common order. 2. The petitioners in both these writ petitions were employed as lower Division Clerks in the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Balotra (hereinafter called the Samiti"). By the order of the District Establishment Committee of the "Zila Parishad, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") dated May 20, 72 conveyed by the letter of the Secretary of the Committee on June 13, 72. Anantram petitioner was transferred from the Panchayat Samiti, Balotra to the Panchsyat Samiti, Shiv, while the petitioner Ramkishen was transferred from the same Panchayat Samiti, to the Panchayet Samiti Baitu. The Committee had earlier on its own initiative sent a letter to the Samiti on 8-5-72 suggesting the transfer of the two petitioners but the Pradhan of the Samiti sent a reply to the effect that the Samiti was satisfied with their work and did not propose to suggest the transfer of the two petitioners and other members of the stiff of the Samiti. A further communication received by the Samiti from the Committee dated May 24, 1972 met the same fate, as the Pradhan of the Sarniti wrote back on May 26, 1972 that the work of the petitioners was appreciable arid there was no complaint against them, as such it was not possible to agree to their transfer to any other Panchayat Samiti. On June 7, 1972 the Administration, Taxation and Finance Standing Committee of the Samiti passed a resolution opposing the transfer of the petitioners, amongst other employees of the Samiti, and resolving that the petitioners ant other employees of the Samiti should not be transferred to any other Panchayat Samitti. Even inspire of the protests of the Samiti, the Committee passed it; aforesaid order dated May 20, 1972 transferring the two petitioners from the Panchayat Samiti, Balotra to the Panchayat Samitis. Shiv and Baitu, as mentioned earlier. 3. The petitioners represented in the matter to the State Government and by its order dated July 7, 1972 the State Government cancelled the order of transfer of the petitioners, while exercising its power under sub section (9A) of Section 86 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & "Lila Parishad Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The petitioners represented in the matter to the State Government and by its order dated July 7, 1972 the State Government cancelled the order of transfer of the petitioners, while exercising its power under sub section (9A) of Section 86 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & "Lila Parishad Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). But some time later by its order dated September 6, 1972 the State Government cancelled its earlier order dated July 7, 1972. The ultimate result was that the order passed by the Committee on May 20, 1972 transferring the petitioners from the Samiti to the otter Panchayat Samities remained effective. It is against this order of the Committee that the two petitioners have filed separate writ petitions in this Court. 4. Sub-section (9) of section 86 of the Act, so far as is relevant, may be reproduced as, under, "86. Consideration of Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service - 'xxx xxx xxx (a) Appointments by promotion or transfer of incumbents holding posts encadred in the Service shall be governed by rules made in this behalf and may be ordered by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad, as the case may be, from amongst persons entered in district wise lists prepared in the prescribed manner. (a) in the case of promotions or transfers within the same district Establishment Committee constituted under section 88, xxx xxx xxx on the recommendation of the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad under whose administrative control they are for the time being and after consulting the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad, as the case may be, under whose administrative control they are proposed to be transferred. Thus sub-section (9) empowers the Committee to order the transfer of the employees of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, but such authority can be exercised on the condition, that the transfer of the employee concerned has been recommended by the Panchayat at Samiti or the Zila Parishad under whose administrative control the said employee is working for the time being and the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad under whose control the employee is proposed to be transferred has been consulted in the matter. 5. 5. In the present case, one of the requirements of sub-section (9) of section 86 of the Act was not fulfilled, namely, that such transfer should be recommended by the Panchayat Samiti under whose administrative control the concerned employee is working for the time being. As mentioned above the Samiti, under whose administrative control the two petitioners were working, had consistently resisted the attempt of the Committee to transfer the two petitioners from the control of the Samiti. It has been throughout opposing the transfer of the two petitioners from the administrative control of the Samiti to any other Panahayat Samiti. In these circumstances the question of the Samiti recommending the transfer of two petitioners did not at all arise. On the other hand, the facts narrated above go to show that the Committee disregarded the recommendation of the Samiti while ordering the transfer of the two petitioners to the administrative control of other Panchayat Samitis. Thus it is absolutely clear that the transfer of the two petitioners was made in utter contravention of the provisions of sub-section (9) of section 86 of the Act. If the Samiti was not agreeable to the transfer of the petitioners from its administrative control, that the Committee had no power or authority to transfer them to any' other Panchayat Samiti. 6. The respondents in their reply have asserted that the Committee was fully empowered to transfer the employees of any Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad and such Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad had merely to be consulted, which did not mean that the consent of such Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad was required to be obtained. So far as the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad to whose administrative control the employee is sought to he transferred in concerned, the view of the respondents appears to be well founded. The provisions of sub-section (9) only require that such Panchayat Samati or Zila Parishad to whom the employee is :ought to be transferred shall be consulted. But at regards the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad in whose service the employee concerned is working at the time when he is sought to be transferred mere consultation is not sufficient. The provisions of sub-section (9) only require that such Panchayat Samati or Zila Parishad to whom the employee is :ought to be transferred shall be consulted. But at regards the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad in whose service the employee concerned is working at the time when he is sought to be transferred mere consultation is not sufficient. It is a positive act of recommendation on the part of such Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad which is required for empowering the Committee to effect a transfer of the employee from the service of such Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad to another Panchayat Sarniti or Zila Parishad within the same District. In the absence of any recommendation of the Panchayat Samiti, under whose administrative control the employee sought to be transferred is working at the relevant time, the Committee is powerless to effect a transfer under the provisions of sub-section (9) of section 86 of the Act. No other provision of law has been referred to by the respondents which might have authorised the Committee to transfer the petitioners from the administrative control of the Samiti. Therefore, the order of transfer of the two petitioners is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and suffers from lack of authority. 7. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. The order of transfer of the two petitioners from the administrative control of the Panchayat Samiti, Balotra by the order of the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parisad, Barmer, dated May 20, 1972 as conveyed by the Secretary of the said Committee by his letter dated June 13, 1972 is set aside. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petitions allowed. *******