JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a teacher who was posted as such under the Panchayat Samiti Baran. By order dated 4.6.1986 of the Zila Parishad Kota he has been transferred to Panchayat Samiti Kishanganj. The transfer is in the same district. This transfer order was challenged by him in a civil suit and his application for grant of a temporary injunction was accepted by the trial court and it was ordered that in pursuance of the transfer order he should not be relieved by the Panchayat Samiti Baran. 2. An appeal against this order was preferred by the State Government and this was accepted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Baran by his order dated 28.8.1987. It has been held that prima facie transfer order has been made in consultation with the Panchayat Samiti Baran where the petitioner was originally working and also with the consent of the Panchayat Samiti Kishanganj where he was transferred and also that no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner if he was asked to join at the place of transfer. In view of this the appeal was accepted and the injunction order was set aside. 3. Against this order the petitioner has come up in this revision. First of all it has been contended that the learned trial court decided the injunction application after taking into consideration the relevant circumstances and law and unless the appellate court was of that the view that this decision of the trial court was perverse illegal or capricious it should not have interfered with the order of the court below. 3A. I shall first come to the arguments which have been advanced on the merits of the case in order to see whether the lower appellate court was justified in interfering with the order of the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under section 86 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Ztla Parishads Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a transfer from one Panchayat Samiti to another can be made only with the consent of the Panchayat Samiti where the employee is working as well as of the Panchayat Samiti where he is proposed to be transferred. In this connection Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Rules. In this connection Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Service Rules. 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) has also been cited which further says that the transfer of an employee from one Panchayat Samiti to another shall be made after consultation with the Panchayat Samiti under whose administrative control the employee is for the time being and also the Panchayat Samiti under whose administrative control he is proposed to be transferred. It has been contended that this consent has to be obtained in advance and unless the consent is obtained prior to passing of the transfer order the same cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of law. Reference is invited to page 5 of the typed copy of the order passed by the Additional District Judge wherein it has been observed that recommendation of Panchayat Samiti Baran as well as Panchayat Samiti Kishanganj is there for purpose of transferring. But it has been contended that on the record there is no consent given by the Panchayat Samiti Kishanganj and as such the lower appellate court has based its decision on incorrect facts. 5. In support of the contention that consent for purpose of transfer is to be obtained prior to the issuance of transfer order. Reliance has been placed on (1) Anant Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1977 WLN (UC) 463) and (2) Vijay Singh Shankhla vs. State of Rajasthan (1986 WLN (UC) 129) wherein it has been held that the consent of the Panchayat Samiti has to be obtained before effecting transfer as per the requirement of sub-section (9) of section 86 of the Act. In both these cases the Panchayat Samiti from where the employee had been transferred had not recommended the transfer and there was no materiai to show that the Panchayat Samiti had even agreed to their transfer. On the contrary a material had been placed before the court that the concerned Panchayat Samiti objected to the transfer. 6. In the present case it is not in dispute that the Panchayat Samiti Baran had given its consent for the transfer of the petitioner. On the contrary a material had been placed before the court that the concerned Panchayat Samiti objected to the transfer. 6. In the present case it is not in dispute that the Panchayat Samiti Baran had given its consent for the transfer of the petitioner. Not only it had given consent but it is a case where it had recommended that the petitioner should be transferred on account of certain complaints against him, in fact this consent had been given on 17.5.1966 by the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti Baran and was confirmed in the meeting of the Finances and Administrative Committee. It is not the case where the transfer has been made without recommendation of the Panchayat Samiti where the petitioner was working. 7. Sub-section (9) of section 86 of the Act provides for appointments by promotion or transfer within the same district (and within (sic) the same district) on the recommendation of the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad under whose administrative control they are for the time being working and after consulting the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad as the case may be under whose administrative control they are proposed to be transferred. This provision makes it clear that the transfer has to be made on the recommendation of the Panchayat Samiti where the worker is working for the time being. This recommendation has naturally to be obtained at stage prior for to the passing of the transfer order. However, consultation with the Panchayat Samiti under whose administrative control the worker is proposed to be transferred may not necessarily be prior to the decision taken for transferring a person. This consultation or consent may be sufficient even if it is given after passing of the transfer order as has been done in the present case. The petitioner and as many as 75 persons were transferred on 4.6,1986 and the concerned Panchayat Samiti namely the Panchayat Samiti Kishanganj passed order dated 24.6,1986 for accepting the persons who had been transferred under its control. This can be said to be consent given by it. The petitioner and as many as 75 persons were transferred on 4.6,1986 and the concerned Panchayat Samiti namely the Panchayat Samiti Kishanganj passed order dated 24.6,1986 for accepting the persons who had been transferred under its control. This can be said to be consent given by it. Not obtaining this consent prior to the passing of the order may be in the nature of a technical objection but in the present case there is recommendation of the Panchayat Samiti Baran for the transfer of the petitioner and thereafter there is an order of the Panchayat Samiti Kishanganj accepting him so there remains no other formality to be performed in effecting the transfer. The Panchayat Samiti from where a person is to be transferred has to make a recommendation for his transfer which necessarily means that it is only after recommendation that the question of transfer of a person shall be considered while the same strict interpretation need not be given to the consultation to be made with the Panchayat Samiti where he is being transferred. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable. At the stage of deciding the matter about grant of temporary injunction it cannot be said that the learned lower appellate court has committed any jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in this revision. He has appreciated the position of law as provided in section 86 of the Act and has based its decision on proper appreciation of law and facts and this does not require any interference. This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******