JUDGMENT 1. - Respondent Chiman Singh is working as Health Officer in Municipal Council, Jodhpur. Vide order dated 12th April, 1982 (Ex. 1), the sanitary work of the Jodhpur Municipal Area was taken over from the petitioner and was divided between two Chief Sanitary Inspectors S/Shri Shambhudutt Kalla and Vijay Singh I. Chiman Singh being aggrieved with the distribution of work between the two Chief Sanitary Inspectors, filed a revision petition before the learned Member, Board of Revenue under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, by its order dated 9.6.83 (Ex. 2) allowed the revision petition filed by Chiman Singh and set aside the order dated 12.4.82 (Ex. 1) passed by the President, Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The President, Municipal Council, Jodhpur, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 9.6.83 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. 2. The impugned order dated 9.6.83 has been challenged on two grounds. Firstly that the arguments were heard on the revision petition on 2nd July 83 and 9.6.83 was fixed for pronouncement of judgment. The counsel for the Municipal Council Shri Bhagwan Swaroop Mathur came late and his presence was not recorded and an exparte order was passed. An affidavit of Shri B.S. Mathur has also been submitted alongwith the writ petition. This affidavit has not been controverted by the respondents. When the arguments were already heard by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 2nd June 1983, then the presence of the counsel for the Municipal Council should have been recorded, proceeding exparte and not dealing with the arguments of the counsel for the Municipal Council was, therefore not justified. The second ground on which the judgment passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, has been assailed by the petitioner is that the learned Member board of Revenue has not decided the case on merits and allowed the revision petition filed by respondent Chiman Singh merely on the ground that there was a stay order passed by this Court in which the status quo was ordered to be maintained. In this aspect suffice it to say that Chiman Singh filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the State Government by which he was transferred from Jodhpur to Bhilwara. In this aspect suffice it to say that Chiman Singh filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the State Government by which he was transferred from Jodhpur to Bhilwara. While admitting the writ petition, the State was directed to maintain status quo but the President or the other Authorities were not restrained from taking any action against Chiman Singh in other matters. The learned Member, Board of Revenue therefore should have decided the revision petition on merits. Status quo was ordered to be maintained with regard to the transfer only. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, has not decided the case on merits. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, is not correct and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the case be remanded to the learned Member, Board of Revenue to decide it on merits. 3. In the result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the order dated 9th June, 1983 (Ex. 2) passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue is quashed and set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Member, Board of Revenue to decide it on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, on 18th September, 1995. The Board is not required to issue any fresh notices.Writ allowed. *******