Honble YADAV, J.–In the present writ petition the petitioners question, legality and validity of transfer order dated 8.5.97 Annex.1 to the writ petition on the ground inter alia that the order impugned, transferring Shri Sita Ram Tailor to Village Panchayat, Manoharpur is neither sustainable in law nor in facts and that impugned order offends the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (26) of Rule 336 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996). (2). It is averred in the writ petition that ignoring the mandatory provisions envisaged under sub-rule (26) of Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 Shri Sita Ram Tailor has been transferred to his home town Manoharpur. It is also averred that under the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act 1994 and the Rules of 1996 the Chief Executive Officer is competent authority to supervise the functions of the Panchayati Raj Institutions but in the instant case in spite of the directions of the Chief Executive Officer in his order dated 30.5.97 Annex. 9 to the writ petition the other officials are not acting in accordance with the express provisions of law. (3). After service of notices, a reply has been filed without naming the respondents arrayed as respondents in the present petition disclosing on whose behalf the same has been filed. In support of the reply an affidavit of Bhoo Prakash Upadhyaya Vikash Adhikari Shahpura has been filed along with stay vacate application wherein the averments made in the writ petition are not admitted in the pre- sent form. It is averred in Para 5 of the reply that the residence of any employee is taken at the time of entry in service in his service book and not at any subsequent stage. It is also averred that Shri Sitaram Tailor is not resident of village Manoharpur which is evident from the bare perusal of his service book, a copy whereof has been filed and marked as Annex. R/2 to the reply. It is further averred that the documents regarding bonafide residence of Shri Sita Ram Tailor which are produced and marked as Annex. R/2 to the reply. It is further averred that the documents regarding bonafide residence of Shri Sita Ram Tailor which are produced and marked as Annex. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively are of no consequence inasmuchas the said bonafide residence certificate has been prepared in favour of the daughter of Sitaram Tailor for seeking her admission in STC course wherein it is required that if a person is residing at one and same place for ten years then he may be treated a bonafide resident of that area for the purpose of STC course. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition and reply filed thereto. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties I have gone through the materials available on record. (5). It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, senior counsel assisted by Mr. Praveen Balwada at the first instance that the impugned transfer order Annex.1 offends the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (26) of Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 which clearly and in express term provides that no Gram Savek shall be posted in home Panchayat. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Annexures 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the writ petition. He also invited my attention to the report submitted by the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Kotputli, Shahpura (Jaipur) wherein Shri Sita Ram Tailor is reported to be original resident (`Mool Niwasi) of Manoharpur. He also submitted that Shri Sita Ram Tailor himself admitted to be resident of Manoharpur Tehsil Shahpura Distt. Jaipur in his affidavit a certified copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. (6). In reply to the aforesaid argument learned government advocate vehemently reiterated the averments made by respondents in paragraph 5 of the reply quoted above. According to the learned government advocate the residence of any employee is taken at the time of entry in service in his service book and not at any subsequent stage. Since the permanent residence of Shri Sita Ram Tailor is shown in his service-book as resident of Ajit Garh Distt. Sikar therefore it is conclusive and final for posting him to Village Panchayat Manoharpur. (7). Since the permanent residence of Shri Sita Ram Tailor is shown in his service-book as resident of Ajit Garh Distt. Sikar therefore it is conclusive and final for posting him to Village Panchayat Manoharpur. (7). The entry made in the service book regarding residence of Shri Sita Ram Tailor at Ajit Garh, Sikar does not inspire my confidence for the reasons given hereinbelow. (8). It is evident from perusal of the affidavit Annexure 6 to the writ petition filed by Sita Ram Tailor asserting himself to be permanent resident of Manoharpur Tehsil Shahpura Distt. Jaipur (Raj.). His admission on affidavit dated 12.8.96 Anne- xure 6 to the writ petition is conclusive proof of his original resident of village Manoharpur unless it is explained by him. In absence of any explanation of Shri Sita Ram Tailor it is held that he is permanent resident of Manoharpur Tehsil Shahpura Distt. Jaipur and an averment contrary to it made in the reply is not correct. (9). It is to be noticed in this regard that mandatory provisions envisaged under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly provide that the facts admitted need not be proved. Affidavits fall within the fold of evidence. An admission can be made on affidavit. The correctnes of admission of Shri Sita Ram Tailor made by him in his affidavit Annex.6 to the writ petition is not being disputed before me but the learned Government Advocate is making an effort to explain the same on the basis of explanation given by answering respondents in Paragraph 5 of the reply which is not acceptable. It is settled principle of law that an admission is to be explained by its author alone not by somebody else. No attempt has been made by answering respondents in the present case to obtain the explanation of Shri Sita Ram Tailor and filed the same with the reply as an Annexure. (10). A close scrutiny of order dated 30.5.97 Annex. 9 to the writ petition reveals that at the time when Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti Shahpura passed impugned order of transfer Annex.1 there was complete prohibition of transfers of employees of Zila Parishad and Panchayat Raj Institutions yet he passed the impugned transfer order which is per se illegal and indicates his contemptuous in subordination to the existing instructions of department. It is not difficult to understand why Vikas Adhikari Shahpura passed the impugned transfer order Annex.1 transferring Shri Sita Ram Tailor to village Panchayat Manoharpur but it is very diffi- cult to approve the same. (11). It is further evident from perusal of Annex.9 to the writ petition that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur has clearly mentioned in his order that the impugned transfer order Annex.1 has been passed in contravention of sub-rule (26) of Rule 336 of the Rules of 1996 which prohibits posting of Gram Sevak in his home Panchayat. The order passed by respondent No.3 Annex.9 to the writ petition has attained finality as it was not challenged either before the higher authority under the Rules of 1996 nor it was challenged in any court of law. (12). It is evident from the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. Rules of 1996 that the Chief Executive Officer respondent No.3 is the competent authority to supervise and control the functions of the Panchayati Raj Institutions including the village Panchayat Manoharpur therefore in view of the directions of respondent No.3 in his order dated 30.5.97 Annex.9 to the writ petition the impugned transfer order is held to be per se illegal without jurisdiction and nonest therefore it deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. (13). I am constrained to observe with anguish that in the reply filed on behalf of respondent no mention is made to the effect on whose behalf it is filed. In fact is is articulated in such a fashion which may give an impression that it is filed by Chief Executive Officer respondent No.3 also who as a matter of fact was not satis- fied with the impugned order of transfer of Shri Sita Ram Tailor and accordingly informed vide his order dated 30.5.97 Annex.9 to the writ petition to the Vikash Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Shahpura that the order of transfer Annex.1 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further apparent on the face of Annex.9 to the writ petition that Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Shahpura was directed by res- pondent No.3 to report compliance in pursuant to his order Annex.9 with one week. (14). It is further apparent on the face of Annex.9 to the writ petition that Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Shahpura was directed by res- pondent No.3 to report compliance in pursuant to his order Annex.9 with one week. (14). It is evident from perusal of Paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the petitioners have made specific averments to the effect that petitioner No.1 has made a representation on 29.5.1997 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur (respondent No.3) apprising him of the entire episode of illegal transfer of Shri Sita Ram Tailor to village Panchayat Manoharpur for the reason of his being permanent resident of the same village Panchayat. The answering respondents have given evasive reply which amounts admission. Similarly in Paragraph 9 of the writ petition a detail reference about the order passed by respondent No.3 Annex.9 to the writ petition has been averred by the petitioners whereby respondent No.3 has impeached the action of Vikash Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Shahpura, transferring Shri Sita Ram Tailor to village Panchayat Manoharpur Tehsil Shahpura. In Paragraph 9 of their reply the answering respondents have again given an evasive reply which tantamounts their admission of the averments made in Paragraph 9 of the writ petition. The learned Government Advocate, during the course of his argu- ments, is not able to demonstrate before me how legality and validity of order Annex.9 to the writ petition passed by respondent No.3 is assailable in the eye of law. The learned Government Advocate is merely reiterating the entry made in service book of Shri Sita Ram Tailor regarding his permanent address which is not acceptable to me without explaining under what circumstances Vikas Adhikari Sh- ahpura has passed the order, when there was complete prohibition in transfers of employees of Panchayati Institutions. Thus, passing of impugned transfer order Annex.1 to the writ petition by Vikash Adhikari Shahpura, transferring Sita Ram Tailor to village Panchayat Manoharpur deliberately and wilfully disobeying complete prohibition clampled by the department is result of a classic illustration of grossest insubordination on his part which deserves to be quashed. (15). It is made clear that Vikas Adhikari Gram Samiti Shahpura being subordinate to Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Jaipur should not have muster courage to file such an affidavit in support of the reply without naming the respon- dents who has filed the present reply. (16). (15). It is made clear that Vikas Adhikari Gram Samiti Shahpura being subordinate to Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Jaipur should not have muster courage to file such an affidavit in support of the reply without naming the respon- dents who has filed the present reply. (16). Lastly, it is urged by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed as Shri Sita Ram Tailor is not impleaded as a party. In order to maintain brevity, sufficie it to say in this regard that in view of the facts and circumstances found in this case on merit in the preceding paragraphs of this order, these technical pleas deserve to be relegated in back seat. It is settled principle of law that in a case where technicalities are pitted against substantial justice then in such a situation, the courts of law are required to prefer substantial justice not technicalities. The Courts are respected not because they are capable to legalise injustice but they are expected to advance justice between the parties. This Court cannot afford to allow substantial justice in the present case either to escape or slide on mere technicalities. It is to be imbibed that in extraordinary writ jurisdiction justice oriented approach of the Courts always remain a dominant factor and not the technicalities as argued by the learned Government Advocate. (17). As a result of aforementioned discussion, the order impugned Annex.1 dated 8.5.97, transferring Shri Sita Ram Tailor to Village Panchayat Manoharpur Tehsil Shahpura Distt. Jaipur is hereby quashed and the instant writ petition is allowed with costs which is assessed at Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand). The cost is made recoverable from the salary of Vikas Adhikari. Panchayat Samiti Shahpura who passed the impugned order of transfer Annexure 1 to the writ petition.