JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, praying that the orders dated 12.12.1996 and 13.12.1996 (Annexure-12 to Annexure-15) be quashed and set aside. Further, it is prayed that directions be issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 to hold performance test and regularise the services of the petitioners. Further, the prayer made by the petitioners is that directions be issued to respondent No. 3 to take the petitioners in employment, if it is found that they are not entitled to earlier relief. 2. Broadly speaking, the facts of the case are that all the four petitioners were appointed on the post of L.D.C. in the Judgeship of Dholpur, on adhoc basis after regular selections under the Rajasthan Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. The particulars of each petitioner are as under : (A) Murari Lal - Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as L.D.C., on adhoc basis under Rule 23(3) of the Rules of 1986, by respondent No. 3 on 25.08.1987. He joined his service on 27.08.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner Murari Lal appeared in the Lower Division Clerk Recruitment Test, 1987 conducted by respondent No. 3 and was successful. He was at serial No. 9 in the merit. Thereafter, he submitted an application for transfer from Dholpur Judgeship to a post under the State of Rajasthan. His application was forwarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dholpur, respondent No. 3 to the Secretary for Law and Legal Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, respondent No. 2. It is to be noted that respondent No. 3, in his forwarding letter, had specifically mentioned that the information in accordance to the Rajasthan High Court Circular dated 21.06.1976 is being furnished, which included that the lien of the applicant shall not be retained after his transfer. On consideration of the application and recommendation made by respondent No. 3, the Secretary Law and Legal Affairs, Government of Rajasthan accepted the request for transfer and issued an order on 07.07.1988 (Annexure-3). Accordingly, the petitioner Murari Lal was posted in the office of Special Public Prosecutor, Dholpur, which he joined on 15.7.1988. (B) Mohan Lal Kaushik - Petitioner No. 2 was appointed, on adhoc basis under Rule 23(3) of the Rules of 1986, by respondent No. 3 as L.D.C. by order dated 16.03.1989 (Annexure-5). He joined his duty on 18.03.1989. Accordingly, the petitioner Murari Lal was posted in the office of Special Public Prosecutor, Dholpur, which he joined on 15.7.1988. (B) Mohan Lal Kaushik - Petitioner No. 2 was appointed, on adhoc basis under Rule 23(3) of the Rules of 1986, by respondent No. 3 as L.D.C. by order dated 16.03.1989 (Annexure-5). He joined his duty on 18.03.1989. Subsequently, he had appeared in the written test conducted under the Rules of 1986 and was declared successful on 14.03.1990. He secured 14th position in the merit. The petitioner Mohan Lal Kaushik had also appeared in the typing test conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission and was declared successful (Annexure-7). Later on, he submitted an application for transfer from Dholpur Judgeship to a post under the State of Rajasthan. His application was also duly forwarded by respondent No. 3, in consonance with the Rajasthan High Court Circular dated 21.06.1976 to respondent No. 2. It was also specifically mentioned in the forwarding letter issued by the learned District Judge that no lien will be retained after the transfer. The respondent No. 2 had, after due consideration, accepted the application and ordered for transfer of the petitioner Mohan Lal on 09.07.1990. The said order reads thus:- jktLFkku ljdkj fof/k ,oa oSf/kd dk;Z foHkkx jktdh; okndj.k dzekad%& ,Q0 12 ( 4 ) jkt@okn@88 -TT t;iqj] fnukad% 9-7-90 vkns'k Jh eksgu yky dkSf'kd] dfu"B fyfid] dk;kZy; ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k] /kkSyiqj dk vUrjfoHkkxh; LFkkukUrj.k gks tkus ds QyLo:i Jh dkSf'kd dk inLFkkiu dk;kZy; jktdh; vf/koDrk] t;iqj esa fjDr in ij fd;k tkrk gSA Jh dkSf'kd dh ofj"Brk bl foHkkx esa dk;Zjr dfu"B fyfidksa ls dfu"Bre gksxhA rFkk bUgsa ;k=k HkRrk ,oa dk;kZjEHk le; ns; ugha gksxkA The petitioner Mohan Lal was posted in the office of Government Advocate, Jaipur which he joined on 28.07.1990. (C) Mansukh - Petitioner No. 3 was appointed, on adhoc basis under Rule 23(3) of the Rules of 1986, on the post of L.D.C. by the respondent No. 3, vide his order dated 03.03.1989. He joined his duty on 07.03.1989. Thereafter, he applied for his transfer from Dholpur Judgeship to a post under the State of Rajasthan. His application was duly forwarded by respondent No. 3 after giving the requisite information, as per the Circular of the High Court dated 21.06.1976. He joined his duty on 07.03.1989. Thereafter, he applied for his transfer from Dholpur Judgeship to a post under the State of Rajasthan. His application was duly forwarded by respondent No. 3 after giving the requisite information, as per the Circular of the High Court dated 21.06.1976. In this case also, it was given out by respondent No. 3 that his lien will not be retained after the transfer. The respondent No. 2 had then, after due consideration, accepted the application for transfer and issued an order dated 26.11.1990. He was posted in the office of Special Public Prosecutor, Bharatpur, which he joined on 01.12.1990. (D) Pramod Kumar Gupta - Petitioner No. 4 was appointed as L.D.C., on adhoc basis by the respondent No. 3, under Rule 23 (3) of the Rules of 1986, vide his order dated 03.03.1989. He joined his service on 04.03.1989. Subsequently, he applied for his transfer from Dholpur Judgeship to a post under the State of Rajasthan. (D) Pramod Kumar Gupta - Petitioner No. 4 was appointed as L.D.C., on adhoc basis by the respondent No. 3, under Rule 23 (3) of the Rules of 1986, vide his order dated 03.03.1989. He joined his service on 04.03.1989. Subsequently, he applied for his transfer from Dholpur Judgeship to a post under the State of Rajasthan. His application was duly forwarded by respondent No. 3 on 27.10.1990 (Annexure-16) and the forwarding letter reads as under:- izs"kd%& ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k] /kkSyiqj ( jkt0 ) izsf"kfr%& Jheku fof/k lfpo egksn;] lfpoky; jktLFkku ljdkj] t;iqj ( jktLFkku ) fo"k;%& dfu"B fyfid ds in ij U;k; foHkkx] /kkSyiqj ls fof/k foHkkx] 'kklu lfpoky;] esa /kkSyiqj ij fjDr dfu"B fyfid ds in ij LFkkukUrj.k ds dze esaA egksn;] bl U;k;{ks= esa dk;Zjr Jh izeksn dqekj xqIrk] dfu"B fyfid U;k;ky; eqaflQ ,oa U;kf;d eftLV~zsV] /kkSyiqj dk izkFkZuk i= vkids foHkkx esa /kkSyiqj eq[;ky; ij LFkkukUrj.k pkgus gsrq izLrqr gqvk gS] tks ewy gh mfpr ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq layXu dj izsf"kr gSA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds i= dzekad& th@1@,0 4@,@70@608 fnukad& 21-6-76 ds vuqlkj okafNr lwpuk fuEuizdkj gS%& 1- Jh xqIrk dh fu;qfDr fnukad& 4-3-89 ls dfu"B fyfid ds in ij bl U;k; {ks= esa rnFkZ :i ls vLFkkbZ rkSj ij gqbZ gSA 2- Jh xqIrk vkids v/khuLFk dk;kZy; esa LFkkukUrj.k gksus ij ofj"Brk ,oa ;k=k HkRrk dk Dyse ugha djsaxs vkSj LFkkbZ@vLFkkbZ dfu"B fyfid ls dfu"B jgus dks rS;kj gSA 3- Jh xqIrk dh LFkkukUrj.k vkids foHkkx esa gksus ij mUgsa bl foHkkx ls dk;ZeqDr dj fn;k tkosxkA 4- Jh xqIrk bl U;k;{ks= esa vLFkkbZ gksus ls mudk bl U;k;{ks= esa (lien) fy;u ugha jgsxkA layXu%& ewy izkFkZuk i= Jh izeksn dqekj xqIrk] dfu"B fyfid The respondent No. 2 had, after due consideration, accepted the application for transfer by his order dated 15.11.1990. The petitioner Promod Kumar Gupta then joined in the office of Special Public Prosecutor, Dholpur on 20.11.1990. 3. Since the aforesaid transfers and postings of the petitioners, made by respondent No. 2, they had been working on the post of the State Government without any break or any complaint in respect of the work. Thereafter, in the year 1996 i.e. after lapse of more than six years, the respondent No. 2 had ordered that they should join back at Dholpur Judgeship. The said orders are impugned in this writ petition (Annexure-12 to Annexure-15). Thereafter, in the year 1996 i.e. after lapse of more than six years, the respondent No. 2 had ordered that they should join back at Dholpur Judgeship. The said orders are impugned in this writ petition (Annexure-12 to Annexure-15). It had been mentioned in the impugned orders dated 12.12.96 and 13.12.96 that the transfers of the petitioners to Government offices were not valid as the relevant service rules are different. The employees of the State of Rajasthan are governed by Rajasthan Subordinate Office Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 while the employees of subordinate Courts are governed by the Rules of 1986. It is to be noted here that at the time of issuance of the impugned orders by respondent No. 2, there had been no vacancy of L.D.C. in the office of Dholpur Judgeship. 4. It is by issuance of the orders of transfer to the earlier department i.e. Dholpur Judgeship, passed by the Secretary for Law and Legal Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, respondent No. 2 that the petitioners felt aggrieved. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. On the other hand, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have contested the writ petition by way of filing the reply. They have stated that the petitioners were earlier transferred to the respective Government offices by the order of respondent No. 2 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the appointments were upto the availability of duly selected candidates from Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In case of the petitioner Murari Lal, it had been stated that transfer upto 28.02.1998 or the availability of duly selected candidates by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. Similarly in the case of Mansukh (petitioner No. 3), in the transfer order dated 26.11.1990 to the office of Special Public Prosecutor (Dacoity Affected Area), Bharatpur, it had been mentioned that after availability of duly selected candidates his services will be terminated. Likewise, the petitioner No. 4 Pramod Kumar Gupta was transferred on 15.11.1990 wherein it was also mentioned that the transfer was upto availability of duly selected candidates by the R.P.S.C. It has also been stated by the respondents No. 1 and 2, in the reply, that as the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had made available duly selected candidates for appointment therefore the order of transfer of petitioners to parental department was rightly passed. The respondents have also stated that the petitioners were not duly selected candidates by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, as such they could not be posted or transferred to the post in a department of the State Government. In reply to ground 'N' of the writ petition, the respondent No. 1 and 2 have stated that after coming to the case of other candidates in the notice of the State Government their transfers are being cancelled, which were transferred after their appointment under the provisions of Rules of 1986. 6. The respondent No. 3 had also filed a separate reply to the writ petition. A perusal of the said reply goes to show that, by enlarge, it is not very specific. However, in reply to para 7 of the writ petition i.e. in respect of vacancy of LDC in the office of respondent No. 3, it has been stated that, "the post of the petitioners is not vacant before the answering respondents." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 and 2 are illegal and unconstitutional. He has also submitted that the impugned orders had been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Further, it is submitted that the action of respondent No. 1 and 2 in passing the impugned orders is discriminatory and in denial of equal treatment of the petitioners as against those who are similarly situated. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned orders are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further elaborating the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before passing of the impugned orders, to unable them to place their version before the respondents for due consideration. 8. While referring to the provisions of the Rules of 1957 such as Rule 7(1), Rule 25(10) and Rule 25(2), it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the transfer of a person can be made to another department on equivalent post with the consent of the Head of Department. It has also been submitted that all persons who had been appointed on adhoc or on daily wages upto 31.03.1990 could be regularly appointed after being subjected to performance test conducted by the Head of Department concerned within a period of three years. It has also been submitted that all persons who had been appointed on adhoc or on daily wages upto 31.03.1990 could be regularly appointed after being subjected to performance test conducted by the Head of Department concerned within a period of three years. He has also submitted that the respondent No. 2 having accepted the applications forwarded by the respondent No. 3, is now estopped from passing the impugned order of transfer and to revert back to the earlier post from where the petitioners had been transferred. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the persons similarly situated, as detailed out in the writ petition, are still working on the post of LDC and no action had been taken against them. It has also been submitted that in case of some other persons, performance test had also been conducted but in respect of the petitioners the same had not been conducted even though the petitioners had been appointed prior to 31.03.1990. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that there is no fundamental difference between the Rules of 1957 and Rules of 1986, as both have been promulgated in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by His Excellency The Governor of Rajasthan. The petitioners were appointed as Government employees and they still remain to be so, even after their transfer in the new office. In the last, the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that by virtue of the impugned orders, the petitioners have been transferred to Dholpur Judgeship, where there had been no vacancy of LDC. The services of the petitioners would virtually come to an end for all practical purposes in case the orders passed by respondent No. 1 and 2 is sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, (Writ Petition No. 8284/2002) and 16 other writ petitions, decided by this Court on 25.11.2002. 10. The case of the respondents is, as the learned counsel has reiterated the stand taken in the reply, that the impugned orders of transfer have rightly been passed because the petitioners were not duly selected by Rajasthan Public Service Commission and that when such candidates were made available, the orders of their transfer to the parent department had been passed. The case of the respondents is, as the learned counsel has reiterated the stand taken in the reply, that the impugned orders of transfer have rightly been passed because the petitioners were not duly selected by Rajasthan Public Service Commission and that when such candidates were made available, the orders of their transfer to the parent department had been passed. Further, he has submitted that the petitioners, being the employees appointed under the Rules of 1986, could not have been allowed to serve in the Government department where the employees are governed under the Rules of 1957, now the Rules of 1999. It has been submitted that by the impugned orders, the petitioners have been sent back to their earlier department and as such no illegality has been committed in issuance of the orders by the respondents. 11. On having considered the facts and circumstances, material on record and the submissions made by the rival parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition has merit. The factual position which emerges, after considering the material on record, is that the petitioners were duly appointed in Dholpur Judgeship, under Rajasthan Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Staff Rules, 1958, against the vacant posts and in regular pay scales (Annexure-1). Thereafter, petitioners submitted applications for transfer to Government offices which were sent, with the concurrence of the Head of the Department i.e. the District Judge, to the State Government. While sending the applications for transfer, the learned District Judge, Dholpur had made reference to the Circular of the Rajasthan High Court No. 70/608 dated 21.06.1976 and in compliance thereof the requisite information was also given. It is to be noted that one of the information given was that no lien of the petitioners will be retained after their transfer. 12. The applications with requests for transfer, duly concurred by the Head of Department i.e. the District Judge, Dholpur, were forwarded to the State Government who, after giving their consent, issued the order of transfer for different offices. It was specifically mentioned that the transfers were being made against the vacant posts and the seniority of the petitioners shall be lower to the persons working on the post of L.D.C. in the said department and no T.A. D.A. allowance shall be payable. It was specifically mentioned that the transfers were being made against the vacant posts and the seniority of the petitioners shall be lower to the persons working on the post of L.D.C. in the said department and no T.A. D.A. allowance shall be payable. One such order of transfer reads as under:- jktLFkku ljdkj fof/k ,oa oSf/kd dk;Z foHkkx jktdh; okndj.k dzekad%& ,Q0 12 4 jkt@okn@88& T T t;iqj] fnukad 9-7-90 vkns'k Jh eksgu yky dkSf'kd] dfu"B fyfid] dk;kZy; ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k] /kkSyiqj dk vUrjfoHkkxh; LFkkukUrj.k gks tkus ds QyLo:i Jh dkSf'kd dk inLFkkiu dk;kZy; jktdh; vf/koDrk] t;iqj esa fjDr in ij fd;k tkrk gSA Jh dkSf'kd dh ofj"Brk bl foHkkx esa dk;Zjr dfu"B fyfidksa ls dfu"Bre gksxhA rFkk bUgsa ;k=k HkRrk ,oa dk;kZjEHk le; ns; ugha gksxkA Even in cases, where the time upto which the transfers were made had been given by respondent No. 2, the petitioners were allowed to be continued even thereafter (Annexure-3). All the petitioners had continued to work upto December 1996. 13. A close look to the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 on 12.12.1996 and 13.12.1996 (Annexure-12 to 15) goes to show that the reason given therein was that the Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Courts are governed by different rules then that of the Ministerial Staffs of the Subordinate offices of the Government. Therefore, the earlier transfer of the petitioners were considered to be in violation of the rules and the State Government had taken a decision that they may be transferred back to their parental departments. Accordingly, it was ordered that the petitioners be immediately relieved from the present posts and they should give their presence before the District Judge, Dholpur. 14. It is to be noted here that reasons given in the reply of respondent No. 2 that because of availability of the duly selected candidates by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, that the impugned order of transfer of the petitioners to the parental departments had been passed, cannot be accepted. A perusal of the impugned orders clearly shows that no such reason formed the basis of the order. The respondents had also not mentioned any details as to who and when a candidate was selected by the R.P.S.C. and was available with the respondents to fill up the posts which was being occupied by the petitioners. 15. A perusal of the impugned orders clearly shows that no such reason formed the basis of the order. The respondents had also not mentioned any details as to who and when a candidate was selected by the R.P.S.C. and was available with the respondents to fill up the posts which was being occupied by the petitioners. 15. So far as the applicability of rules to the petitioners, when they were initially appointed in the Subordinate Court and that of the employees of the Subordinate offices of the State Government are concerned as well as the contentions of the respondents that the transfers of the petitioners with the State Government office from Dholpur Judgeship was contrary to Rules, is also neither valid nor acceptable. It may be mentioned that the petitioners were appointed with the Subordinate Courts and it was with the concurrence of the Head of the Department, that is the District Judge, that their applications were forwarded and on the consent having been given for transfer as also order passed by Head of Department of Government office that the petitioners had joined in various offices of Special Public Prosecutor and Government Advocate. It is to be noted that the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 as well as the Rajasthan Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Staff Rules, 1986 have been made by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercising of powers conferred by the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The employees of the offices, governed by both the aforesaid Rules, are in any case State employees. 16. Moreover, Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1957, as notified on 31.10.1981 reads as follows:- "7(1) a post in any cadre may also be filled by transfer of a person holding a post in another Department corresponding to a post in the cadre concerned, with the concurrence of the Head of the Department." Furthermore, Rule 27 (xii) provides for inter se seniority of persons transferred from one department to another on a corresponding basis vis-a-vis persons of the Department in which such person has been transferred. The said Rule reads thus:- "(xii) that notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in substantive part of rule 27, in case of a person holding a post mentioned in sub-rule (2) of the rule 6 of these rules in a Department and has been transferred from one Department to another on the corresponding post in the cadre concerned at his own request in accordance with proviso (1) to sub-rule (1) of rule 7, the inter se seniority of such person vis-a-vis persons of the Department in which such person has been taken on transfer at his own request shall be determined from the date he joins the new Department on the post concerned." Therefore, in my view, the aforesaid relevant provisions in the Rules of 1957 leaves no room of doubt that the employees appointed and working under the Rules, other than the Rules of 1957, can be transferred to the department being governed by the Rules of 1957 with the concurrence of the Head of Department. Unlike the Rules for High Court Staff, viz. the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 which are made by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India, as mentioned earlier, the Rules of 1957 and the Rules of 1986 are made by the Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Both these Rules are for the offices of the state Government and there cannot be a bar, much less to say legal one, under any of the said Rules so as to say that the transfer of the employees, initially governed under Rules of 1986, to the offices which are governed by the Rules of 1957 is in violation of the Rules as given by the respondents in the impugned orders. Consequently, the impugned orders passed against the petitioners are wholly erroneous and not sustainable in law. 17. The matter can be looked into yet from another angle. Consequently, the impugned orders passed against the petitioners are wholly erroneous and not sustainable in law. 17. The matter can be looked into yet from another angle. When the applications for transfers submitted by the petitioners were duly considered by, the then the Head of Department i.e. the District Judge, Dholpur and after his concurrence and the consent of the Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs, Government of Rajasthan, respondent No. 2, the lien of the petitioners was not retained in the earlier office. In such a situation, the State Government is bound to continue the petitioners in its office because the lien of the petitioners, which had not been retained at Dholpur Judgeship at the time of transfer in the year 1989, cannot be now revived. As all the posts at Dholpur Judgeship have already been filled up long back, transfer of the petitioners to that office now, would definitely create complications. 18. As has been stated by the petitioners and given the names of the persons who are still working under the respondent No. 2 and are similarly situated as the petitioners, goes to show that the issuance of the impugned orders by the respondents suffers from discriminatory action on the part of the respondents. Apart from it, other persons have been retained by the petitioners for whom the respondents have conducted performance tests under Rule 25(10) of the Rules of 1957, but it has not been so done in the case of the petitioners. The action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders, after having accepted the request of transfer from Dholpur Judgeship and also having given posting to the petitioners at various places for over about six years, till the passing of the impugned orders, suffers from illegality as it is hit by the principle of estoppel for canceling the transfer orders passed earlier and reverting the petitioners.The impugned orders passed by the respondents whereby the petitioners have been sent to their earlier offices after a lapse of more than six years is illegal also for being violative of the principle of natural justice. In the instant case, the impugned orders had been passed by the respondents without any intimation or notice to the petitioners and this gains significance in the circumstance that earlier the petitioners were posted by respondent No. 2 himself at the subordinate offices, after accepting their requests, which was with the concurrence of the District Judge, Dholpur. 19. It is noteworthy that though by the impugned orders of 12.12.1996 and 13.12.1996, the State Government held that the transfer of the petitioners from Dholpur Judgeship to the offices of the State Government, namely Special Public Prosecutor and Government Offices as contrary to Rules but it had itself subsequently given consent for transfer of employees from amongst the Ministerial Staff of the District and Sessions Judge to that of Industrial Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar. An order in this respect was issued by Deputy Secretary Administration, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Rajasthan on 30.01.1999. The said order reads thus:- jktLFkku ljdkj Je ,oa fu;kstu foHkkx dzekad% i0 G(1) Jfu@97 t;iqj] fnukad% 30-1-99 U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] JhxaxkuxjA fo"k;%& vUrZfoHkkxh; LFkkukUrj.k ij ea=kyf;d deZpkfj;ksa dks ysus dh vuqefr ckcr~A lanHkZ%& vkidk i= dzekad%& 131 fnukad& 28-1-99 egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ,oa lanfHkZr i= ds dze esa funsZ'kkuqlkj ys[k gS fd vkids izLrko ds vuqlkj ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'kksa ls ea=kyf;d deZpkfj;ksa dks vkids v/khu fu;ekuqlkj LFkkukUrj.k djus dh jkT; ljdkj dh Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA Therefore it is further clear that inter department transfers from Subordinate Judicial Courts to that of the office of the Government were being made and consent had been granted by the State Government, from time to time. 20. A question, similar to the present one, had come up for consideration before the High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 8284/2002) and 16 other writ petitions. In that case, the broad facts were that the employees working in the Judicial Courts had later made a request for their transfer to the Medical College, Kota, after its establishment in the year 1992, and it was so accepted. Later on the State Government, vide order dated 25.10.1999, decided that the transfer of the employees to the Medical College, Kota was contrary to the Rules and was invalid. Later on the State Government, vide order dated 25.10.1999, decided that the transfer of the employees to the Medical College, Kota was contrary to the Rules and was invalid. Being aggrieved by the said order, employees had filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur which was accepted by order dated 07.08.2001. Thereafter, the State of Rajasthan had challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court rejected the contentions of the State Government and by dismissing the writ petition filed by the State Government on 25.11.2002, it upheld the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the earlier orders of transfer made by the Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs, Government of Rajasthan in respect of petitioner Murari Lal on 07.07.1988 (Annexure-3); the petitioner Mohan Lal Kaushik on 09.07.1990 (Annexure-8); the petitioner Mansukh on 26.11.1990 and the petitioner Pramod Kumar Gupta on 15.11.1990 (Annexure-11) were erroneous or contrary to law. The said transfer of the petitioners, who were initially appointed under the Rules of 1986, could be done to the offices of the Government where the Rules of 1957 were applicable. Both the Rules had been framed by His Excellency, The Governor of Rajasthan, in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, a perusal of the relevant Rules also gives out that transfer from one department to the other is permissible and can be done with concurrence/consent of the Head of departments of both the departments. The same had been so done in the instant case. Apart from it, it was specifically made clear that the lien of the petitioners shall not be retained after their transfer and that came into effect, the moment the petitioners joined the new department. It is after six years that the orders, for cancellation of earlier transfer, dated 12.12.1996 and 13.12.1996 had come to be passed. Moreover, no vacancy remained in the department where the petitioners had earlier worked. Above all the respondents had, in similarly situated cases, continued the persons in the later department who had also been transferred from other departments and were initially appointed under different rules. 22. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.12.1996 and 13.12.1996 (Annexure 12 to Annexure-15) are hereby quashed and set aside. Above all the respondents had, in similarly situated cases, continued the persons in the later department who had also been transferred from other departments and were initially appointed under different rules. 22. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.12.1996 and 13.12.1996 (Annexure 12 to Annexure-15) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to take further steps under the rules for regularisation of services of the petitioners within a period of three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *******