Honble YADAV, J.–The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning his transfer order dated 1.7.98 (Annex.1) on the ground inter alia that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur (respondent No.2) has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned transfer order transferring him from Panchayat Samiti Sarada to Panchayat Samiti Kotda in the same district. (2). In support of his aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 289 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996) wherein it is provided that the name of the employee, desiring transfer or desired to be transferred within the district shall be communicated to the District Establishment Committee by the Panchay at Samiti. It is further provided under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 289 of the aforesaid Rules that posting by transfer of such an employee shall be made by the Panchayat Samiti in Zila Parishad concerned on the recommendation of District Establishment Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Joshi also invited my attention to Section 90 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 wherein the District Establish- ment Committee has been defined. (3). On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents urged that the impugned transfer order dated 1.7.98 (Anex.1) passed by respondent No.2 is perfectly legal and valid within the meaning of Sub-rule (17) and sub-rule (26) of Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996. Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 provides that in addition to the powers and duties laid down under Section 84 of the Act, the Chief Executive Officer shall assist in discharge of function specified in Rule 336 and perform additional duties and exercise powers enumerated under the aforesaid Rules. Un- der Sub-rule (17) of Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 it is envisaged that the Chief Executive Officer will have the power to arrange for smooth working of Panchayats by posting Gram Sevak-cum-Secretary or arranging persons on contract basis out of own resources of Panchayats or general purpose grant released to them by State Government. Under sub- rule (26) of Rule 336 of the said Rules of 1996 it is postula- ted that transfers of members of Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad services within the district as per general guidelines or decision taken by Zila Parishad is to be exercised by Chief Executive Officer. (4). Under sub- rule (26) of Rule 336 of the said Rules of 1996 it is postula- ted that transfers of members of Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad services within the district as per general guidelines or decision taken by Zila Parishad is to be exercised by Chief Executive Officer. (4). The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that such disputes as is being raised in the instant writ petition are frequently raised before this Court consuming public time again and again hence in order to remove ambiguity it is held that rule 289 of the Rules of 1996 is over and above the power of transfer conferred upon the Chief Executive Officer under Sub-rule (17) and Sub-rule (26) of Rule 336 of the said Rules. Rule 289 of the Rules of 1996 can be pressed into service only in two conditions where an employee of Panchayat Samiti himself desires to be transfer- red or the Panchayat Samiti desired to transfer him whereas rest of transfer orders based on administrative exigencies as incidence of service falls within the fold of Sub-rule (17) and sub-rule (26) of Rule 336 of the said Rules which are intended to be performed by Chier Executive Officer. I have no hesitation to hold that sub-rule (17) and sub-rule (26) of Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 have overriding effect over Rule 289 of the said Rules. (5). I am of the view that Rule 289 and Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 deserve to be interpreted harmoniously to ascertain the true legislative intent making both the aforesaid Rules workable and functional. It is held that where there are two provisions which are not capable to be reconciled with each other they should be so interpreted that if possible effect may be given to both. The aforesaid interpretation of Rule 289 and Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 make both the Rules workable hence it can be safely said that it is within the tune of harmonious interpretation. (6). There is yet another reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. The aforesaid interpretation of Rule 289 and Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 make both the Rules workable hence it can be safely said that it is within the tune of harmonious interpretation. (6). There is yet another reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. I am of the view that if in the same Rules of 1996 two conflicting and inconsistent rules are framed by the State Government in exercise of its statutory powers then in such a situation the subsequent rule will prevail to the extent of inconsistency over the earlier rule on the principle that although the Rule Making Authority was conscious of Rule 289 yet under Sub-rule (17) and Sub-rule (26) of Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 the power of transfer has been conferred upon the Chief Executive Officer. (7). Lastly, it is urged by learned counsel Mr. Joshi that the petitioner is a patient of acute hypertension and heart disease. He was admitted several times in the Government Hospital at Udaipur. Number of times, he was advised to go for his medical Check-up and treatment to Ahmedabad and ultimately he was referred to Bombay Hospital, Bombay. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioner has better medical facilities at Sarada which is nearer to Udaipur and in case he is transferred from Sarada to Kotda then he will be deprived of his medical facilities easily available to him at Udaipur. The learned counsel for the petitionerinvited my attention to rejoinder filed by the petitioner wherein it is stated that he has already filed a representation before respondent No. 2 which is pending consi- deration before him. While inviting attention towards Annex.3 to the writ petition it is urged by Mr. Joshi that Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Kotda, Udaipur is not accepting joining of the petitioner in pursuance of impugned transfer order dated 1.7.98 (Annex.1). (8). Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is directed to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of respondent No.2 by filing a freash representation within three weeks from the date of obtaining a certified copy of this order. (8). Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is directed to bring the aforesaid facts to the notice of respondent No.2 by filing a freash representation within three weeks from the date of obtaining a certified copy of this order. The Chief Executive Officer (respondent No.2) is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to him within three weeks thereafter from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner. (9). With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.