JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the writ petitions having common facts and law, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. 2. The facts of Rajesh Bhandari & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11434/2008) are taken as leading case. 3. The petitioners were initially appointed on substantive basis as Junior Engineers and were further promoted on substantive basis by the DPC on the post of Assistant Engineers. The petitioners were all working at various places under the Water Shade Scheme, which was governed by the Agriculture Department and their appointment is under the Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960. 4. The controversy arose when the State Government vide Cabinet decision taken on 19.06.2003 has decided in terms of the provisions of 73rd Amendment in the Constitution to shift departments under the control of the Panchayati Raj Department and without seeking consent from any of the officers, proceeded to pass an order shifting the department as well as the employees working under the Agriculture Department under the Panchayati Raj institutions meaning thereby that the Panchayati Raj Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1996 made thereunder would have applied on them, although there were neither appointed under those Rules nor they were employees of the Panchayat. 5. The petitioners have challenged the order impugned dated 13.10.2008, whereby they have been transferred from Commissionerate, Watershed Development and Soil Conservation to National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the Scheme under the Panchayati Raj Department. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioners from their parent department to the Scheme under the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified as well as contrary to the provisions contained under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 read with Rule 141 and 142 of the Rules of 1951. 6. The petitioners have also challenged the order impugned dated 14.10.2008, whereby the posts of Assistant Engineers have been abolished from the Commissionerate, Watershed Development and Soil Conservation without jurisdiction. 7. It is also contended that the transfers are made without obtaining consent from the petitioners before changing their services as initially they were appointed under the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 and now they were put under the Panchayati Raj Act of 1994 and Rules of 1996. 8. 7. It is also contended that the transfers are made without obtaining consent from the petitioners before changing their services as initially they were appointed under the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 and now they were put under the Panchayati Raj Act of 1994 and Rules of 1996. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the interim orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2834/2004 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3292/2004) dated 28.05.2004, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2099/2004 dated 11.06.2004 and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3055/2004 dated 10.09.2008. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners have been transferred by the competent authority and the decision was taken by the State Government as per 73rd Amendment in the Constitution of India for strengthening the Panchayati Raj Institutions by giving more powers to these institutions and for this purpose 11th Schedule was added to the Constitution of India and about 29 subjects were transferred to the Panchayati Raj Institutions and accordingly the State Government transferred the Watershed Development and Soil Conservation Department under the administrative control of Panchayati Raj Department from Agriculture Department. 10. It is also contended that since there was no work for Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers, therefore, a decision was taken by the State Government to abolish 5 posts of Assistant Engineers and 8 posts of Junior Engineers from the Office of the Commissioner, Watershed Development and Soil Conservation vide order impugned dated 14.10.2008 and the transfers of the petitioners have been made purely on administrative exigency to perform their duties in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which is framed for the benefit of the villagers living below the poverty line. Under this scheme by utilising a huge budget, various construction works are going on and to supervise such work there is dire need of technical hands to take maximum use of the manpower in the constructive work as required and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme has been launched by the Central Government by enacting an Act called as National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and this Act has been enacted with an object to provide for enhancement of the livelihood security of the poor households in rural areas of the country by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wages employment in every financial year to every household whose adult member volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The administrative control over this Scheme is of Panchayati Raj Department and since the petitioners have already been relieved vide order dated 14.10.2008, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents while transferring them. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents and have also carefully gone through the relevant rules and judgments referred by the respective parties and perused the orders impugned dated 13.10.2008 and 14.10.2008, against which the instant writ petitions are preferred on behalf of the petitioners. 12. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme has been launched by the Central Government by enacting the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 and the Watershed Department which was earlier governed by the Agriculture Department has been put under the supervision of Panchayati Raj Department. There is no change of service conditions and the rights and service conditions of the petitioners are protected, even the Department has been put under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme which is under the control of Panchayati Raj Act. The petitioners cannot claim as a right to continue with the Watershed Development and Soil Conservation Department as the said Department is not having adequate work, on the contrary, the NREGA Scheme launched by the Central Government i.e. National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is having ample work. 13. The petitioners cannot claim as a right to continue with the Watershed Development and Soil Conservation Department as the said Department is not having adequate work, on the contrary, the NREGA Scheme launched by the Central Government i.e. National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is having ample work. 13. So far as the plea taken by the petitioners that after enforcement of Model Code of Conduct and after imposing ban by the Election Commission, such transfers cannot be made, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Das Mittal & 207 Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2007(2) WLC (Raj.) 775 , wherein it has been held by this Court that "Transfers made in exercise of power under statutory Rules- Administrative instructions imposing ban on transfer cannot supersede statutory Rules- Transfers without adherence to instructions not a violation of service conditions." 14. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 , has held as under:- "In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer order are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders." 15. The consent is also not required to be taken from the petitioners before transferring them. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders." 15. The consent is also not required to be taken from the petitioners before transferring them. Since the rights of the petitioners are protected even in the NREGA Scheme, merely because they were put under the supervision of Panchayati Raj Department, the petitioners cannot challenge the transfer order, which is made in the exigency of service and in the interest of public at large to discharge their duties under the NREGA Scheme launched by the Central Government. 16. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the impugned orders dated 13.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 which are under challenge in both the writ petitions require no interference whatsoever by this Court. 17. Consequently, both the writ petitions fail being devoid of merit and the same are hereby dismissed.Writ petitions dismissed. *******