JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 4-7-1998 (Annexure-2), by which the petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk in Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City, district Nagaur, has been transferred to Zila Parishad, Pali. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had been working as an Upper Division Clerk in Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City, Zila Parishad, Nagaur and by the said impugned order, he has been transferred to Zila Parishad, Pali. The grounds of challenge are purely on interpretation of the statutory provisions. Mr. M.C. Bhoot has urged only following two grounds : the statutory provisions do not permit to transfer the employees of the Panchayat Samiti of one district to the Zila Parishad of another district: and (ii) an employee of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad can be transferred by the State Government to another Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad either on his own request, or on the recommendation made by the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad and State Government cannot pass the transfer order suo motu. To fortify his submissions, Mr. Bhoot has referred to and relied upon the relevant statutory provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter called "the Act") and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter called "the Rules"), which read as under : "89. Constitution of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service. There shall be constituted for the State service designated as the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service and hereafter in this section referred to as the service and recruitment thereto shall be made district-wise. (2) The service may be divided into different categories, each category being divided into different grades, and shall consist of ........ (iv) ministerial establishment (except Accounts and Junior Accountants). (5) All appointments to posts in the service shall be ......................... (c) by transfer. (8) Appointments by (i) promotion shall be made by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad, as the case may be, in the prescribed manner from amongst the persons whose names have been entered in the list prepared by the District Establishment Committee; and (ii) transfer shall be made after consultation with the Pradhans or the Pramukhs, as the case may be, of the Panchayat Samitis or the Zila Parishads from and to which such transfer is proposed to be made. (8-A). (8-A). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (8), the State Government may transfer any member of the service from one Panchayati Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti, whether within the same district or outside it, from one Zila Parishad to another Zila Parishad, or from a Panchayat Samiti to a Zila Parishad or from a Zila Parishad to a Panchayat Samiti, and may also stay the operation of, or cancel, any order of transfer made under sub-section (8) or the rules made thereunder." (Emphasis added).Rule 290. Transfer outside the district. - (1) The name of the employee desiring transfer or desired to be transferred from one district to another shall be communicated to the Director by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad, as the case may be. (2) Posting by transfer of such an employee shall be made by the Panchayat Samiti or the Zila Parishad concerned on the recommendation of the State Government against the vacant posts existing at such time. The State Government may transfer any member of service from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same district or outside it, from one Zila Parishad to another Zila Parishad, or from Panchayat Samiti to Zila Parishad or from a Zila Parishad to Panchayat Samiti, and may also stay the operation of, or cancel, any order of transfer made under these rules. Chief Executive Officer of Vikas Adhikari concerned shall carry out such orders. (3) On transfer of an employee, his confidential roll and service record will be transmitted without avoidable delay to the Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad to whom his services have been transferred. Rule 291. Seniority on transfer. - Seniority of an employee transferred outside the district, by the State Government under sub-section (8-A) of Section 89, shall be determined by the Committee of the District to which he is transferred : (i) if the transfer is made on the request of the employee, his seniority shall be fixed at the bottom of the seniority list of the cadre to which he belongs; and (ii) if the transfer is made on administrative or other reasons, his seniority shall be fixed on the basis of his continuous length of substantive service on an analogous post." 3. Mr. Mr. Bhoot has contended that the language of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules is quite clear that an employee of a Panchayat Samiti can be transferred to the Panchayat Samiti of the same district, or another district, or to the Zila Parishad of the same district but an employee of a Panchayat Samiti cannot be transferred to the other Zila Parishad, for the reason that in the second part of sub-section (8-A) the words "whether within the same district or outside it" have not been incorporated by the legislature. Therefore, these provisions can be interpreted only by holding that an employee of a Panchayat Samiti cannot be transferred to another Zila Parishad. Mr. Bhoot has submitted that while interpreting the statutory provisions, it is not permissible for the Court to add or substract any words in the statutory provisions and it has to be read and given a plain meaning to the provision. 4. The submission made by Mr. Bhoot is preposterous for the reason that if the State Government has the power to transfer an employee from a Panchayat Samiti to the Zila Parishad and from one Zila Parishad to another Zila Parishad, how it can be deprived of the power to transfer an employee of a Panchayat Samiti to another Zila Parishad directly. The language of the statutory provisions does not expressly prohibit such transfer. Therefore, it has to be interpreted looking into the Scheme of the whole Act. Mr. Bhoot has fairly conceded that there is no statutory bar for the State Government to transfer an employee of a Panchayat Samiti to the Zila Parishad of the same district and further to transfer the same employee from one Zila Parishad to another Zila Parishad. Similarly, an employee of the Panchayat Samiti can be transferred to the Panchayat Samiti outside the Zila Parishad and subsequently he can, also, be transferred from Samiti to the Zila Parishad. If it is so, the Court fails to understand how the State can be held having no competence to transfer an employee from one Panchayat Samiti to another Zila Parishad directly. 5. If it is so, the Court fails to understand how the State can be held having no competence to transfer an employee from one Panchayat Samiti to another Zila Parishad directly. 5. It is settled proposition of law that what cannot be done "per directum is not permissible to be done per obliquum", meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous connivance on the principle of "quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud." 6. In Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh, AIR 1979 SC 381 : (1979 Cri LJ 318) , the Apex Court has observed that an Authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by "shift or contrivance". While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance on the judgment in Fox v. Bishop of Chester, (1824) 2 B & C 635 , wherein it has been observed as under : "To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it must be construed as to defeat at all attempts to do, or avoid doing in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined." 7. Law prohibited to do something indirectly which is prohibited to be done directly but the vice versa is not prohibited. Thus, in view of the above, there is no substance in the said submission. 8. On the second issue, Mr. Bhoot has submitted that the transfer of the petitioner from one Panchayat Samiti to another Zila Parishad has changed the employer, adversely affects his seniority and service conditions and, therefore, it cannot be done without the consent of the petitioner or without consulting the employer, i.e., Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City, and, thus, the State has acceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned transfer order. 9. The question of adversely affecting the service conditions and seniority does not arise in this case as it is well protected by the provisions of Rule 291 of the Rules. The provisions of sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 89 of the Act empower the State Government to appoint the members of other service of the State to the service of the Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad under the Act and the Rules. Transfer is also a mode of making appointment as provided in subsection (8) of Section 89 of the Act. Transfer is also a mode of making appointment as provided in subsection (8) of Section 89 of the Act. The case of appointment stands entirely on a different footing because it will require the sanctioning of the post, financial approval, availability of vacancy etc. and there may a case where the selection process may be in its mid way. But petitioner's case is a plain and simple case of transfer and does not require to be examined in context of the provisions providing for appointment by transfer. Therefore, the issue lies in a very narrow compass : whether the State Government has an independent power of transferring an employee of the Samiti or Parishad without his consent and without consulting the Samiti/Parishad. 10. In a similar case, while interpreting the analogous provisions of Rule 336 of the Rules, this Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2344/1998, Nawab Beg v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 16-10-1998 , held that such a power is exercised independently of other powers and it has a overriding effect over the other rules. In the said case, it was observed that the Chief Executive Officer can exercise the power independently under sub-rules 17 and 26 of Rule 336, and it would have an overriding effect over the provisions of Rule 289 of the said Rules. 11. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Pratap, 1988 (2) RLR 136 , has observed that the power to prescribe duty, functions and power of different categories of officers and employees of the Zila Parishad, is vested in the State Government. The mode of appointment is by way of direct recruitment, promotion or transfer. The provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, conferred eligibility on the persons holding the post encadred in the services to be appointed, or promoted to the post in a State Service, or under the State Government, such appointment is also permissible by transfer. Their service in the Panchayat Service is counted for the purpose of seniority and pension. Statutory provisions conferred the power of transfer in the State Government and the same was to serve the larger public interest and it was it consonance with the Scheme of the Act. Their service in the Panchayat Service is counted for the purpose of seniority and pension. Statutory provisions conferred the power of transfer in the State Government and the same was to serve the larger public interest and it was it consonance with the Scheme of the Act. The power to transfer outside the district was available in the provisions and the power conferred under Section 9-A was an additional power conferred on the State Government and the purpose for conferring such a power on the State Government was to ensure to achieve the objectives of the Act and to ensure that Samities and Zila Parishad may function effectively and efficiently. 12. In Ram Kishore Sharma v. Zila Parishad, 1993 WLR 206 , this Court has categorically held that such power was not something unusual, different of propositions or dehors the Scheme of the Act. The right to transfer a member of the service was an important attribute of executive power and was considered essential to maintain efficiency and cleanliness in administration. Thus, the right of general transfer of member of the service was treated to be an important attribute of the executive power, which has consistently been held to be essential for better administration. 13. Thus, in view of the above, I am of the view that the power conferred on the State Government under the provisions of subsection (8-A) is an additional and it will not depend on the consent of the employee or the consultation with the Panchayat Samiti and no fault can be found with the impugned transfer order on his count. 14. It is next submitted by Mr. Bhoot that there was no material before the State Government, on the basis of which, even in the interest of administrative exigency or efficiency of administration, the impugned transfer order has been passed. In absence of any allegation of mala fide or pleadings in the petitioner in this regard, the Court is inclined to entertain such a plea. A party is bound to plead his case and substantiate it by placing sufficient material on record. (Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 , and Larsen & Tubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 1998 (4 ) SCC 387 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1608 ) . In the instant case, the facts and circumstances do not warrant any investigation in this regard. (Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 , and Larsen & Tubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 1998 (4 ) SCC 387 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1608 ) . In the instant case, the facts and circumstances do not warrant any investigation in this regard. The petition is devoid of any merit and hence liable to be dismissed. 15. Thus, in view of the above , the petition is dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved of the transfer order, he can make a representation to the State Government ventilating his grievances and if he does so within two weeks from today, the State Government is directed to consider it within four weeks thereafter strictly in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that the grievances of an employee cannot be brushed aside by the Competent Authority merely being personal in nature. For a further period of six weeks, status, quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained regarding posting.Petition dismissed. *******