ORDER : 1. This writ petition and several other writ petitions, as indicated in the annexed Schedule, have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against orders passed by the respondents, whereby, pursuant to their selection under provisions of Rule 6D of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (‘Rules of 1971’), they have been adjusted/posted as per the Schedule at various schools under the Education Department. 2. It is, inter alia, the case of the petitioners that they were initially appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.-III, which has now been re-designated as Teacher Gr.-III, Level-I or Level–II under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘the Act of 1994’) and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules of 1996’); services of the petitioners were confirmed/regularized under the provisions of the Act of 1994 & the Rules of 1996; it is alleged that though the petitioners were appointed and their services are governed by the Act of 1994 & the Rules of 1996, without their knowledge, their services are being transferred under the provisions of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 to the Education Department; the respondents took steps for changing the setup under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971, whereby, instructions were issued for changing the setup, calling upon the candidates/teachers to appear for the counseling; pursuant thereto, the orders have been passed transferring the petitioners from the Schools under the Panchayati Raj Department to the Education Department. 3. It is, inter alia, submitted that the process under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 is a mode of recruitment and is permissible only when the individual is fulfilling the eligibility criteria on the date of appointment and is willing for change of setup from Panchayati Raj Department to the Education Department; the petitioners were made to participate in the counseling as they were relieved to participate in the counseling and even during counseling the respondents did not adhere to their own guidelines. The orders impugned are in violation of provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (‘Rules of 2011’). 4. Based on the above submissions, a prayer has been made for quashing of the orders impugned and allowing the petitioners to continue with the Panchayati Raj Department. 5. The orders impugned are in violation of provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (‘Rules of 2011’). 4. Based on the above submissions, a prayer has been made for quashing of the orders impugned and allowing the petitioners to continue with the Panchayati Raj Department. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, indicating that Teachers Gr.-III Level-I are required to teach the students upto Class-V and Teachers Gr.III Level-II are required to teach the students from Class-VI to VIII; cadre of Teacher Gr.-III is considered district wise and their seniority for the purpose of promotion for Teacher Gr.-II is also maintained at district level; the minimum qualification for Teacher Gr.-III is Senior Secondary BSTC in terms of the Rules of 1971, the Teacher Gr.-III, having Graduation with B.Ed. degree, is eligible for Level-II and for promotion as Teacher Gr.-II the qualification is Graduation with B.Ed. degree. 6. It is, inter alia, indicated that the State Government took a decision to merge Primary and Upper Primary Schools to nearby Secondary/Senior Secondary Schools and, therefore, now the Schools, which are under the control of Secondary Education Department, are imparting education for I to X/XII standard; it is also submitted that pursuant to the said merger, the need of Teachers Gr.-III Level-I and II for teaching students upto V standard were required under the administrative control and, therefore, Teachers are transferred and absorbed in the Secondary Education Department as per their seniority in terms of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971. 7. Submissions have been made that the issues sought to be raised have already been decided by this Court when similar steps were taken by the respondent Department in the year 2015 and the action of the respondents has been upheld; a specific submission has been made that the service conditions of the Teachers, who have been transferred from the Elementary Education/Panchayati Raj Department will not be affected; further submission has also been made by way of additional affidavit alongwith copy of order dated 17.08.2017 that for appropriate disposal of the grievances raised by the employees absorbed under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971, a Committee has been constituted comprising of the Dy. Director of the concerned range as chairperson alongwith District Education Officer, Primary Education and District Education Officer, Secondary Education of the concerned District as its members, wherein, the petitioners, if they have any grievance, can submit their representation, which can be resolved by the Committee; it has been prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. 8. At the outset learned Government counsel appearing for the respondent Education Department submitted that the issues raised in the present writ petitions are squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Surendra Kumar Bhatt & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 16671/2015, decided on 03.12.2015 and the order dated 30.05.2016 passed in Bhagwana Ram v. State & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 6272/2016; whereafter, the said order dated 30.05.2016 has been upheld in Mohan Lal Jat & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 461/2016, decided on 02.06.2016; whereafter, a final order in the said writ petition, pertaining to which, order dated 30.05.2016 was passed, has been passed in Bhagwana Ram v. State & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 6272/2016 on 24.08.2016 and, therefore, now it is not open for the petitioners to reopen the said issue, which has already attained finality by judgment of this Court, pertaining to the exercise undertaken by the respondents in the year 2015. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that while delivering the judgment in the case of Surendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) and Bhagwana Ram (supra), several aspects have not been taken into consideration and in fact the said judgments run contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court as well as judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, judgments in the case of Surendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) & Bhagwana Ram (supra) require reconsideration. 10. 10. It was submitted that for changing the set up of an employee from one department to another department, the consent of such an employee is a pre-requisite and sine qua non and without the consent of such an employee, neither he can be transferred nor he can be sent on deputation and, therefore, the action of the respondents in changing the set up of the petitioners from Panchayati Raj Department to the Education Department is ex facie illegal; it was submitted that there is no provision in the Panchayati Raj Act/Rules authorizing the respondents to change the set up as impugned in the present writ petitions. 11. With reference to the provisions of Rules 282 and 283 of the Rules of 1996, it was submitted that the said provisions provide otherwise, which provisions have admittedly not been followed; submissions were made that as per the provisions of Rules of 2011, the consent of Panchayati Raj Department is necessary, which has not been taken in the present matters and in view thereof, the action of the respondents stands vitiated. 12. Submissions have also been made with regard to the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’) to contend that the petitioners do not fulfill the criteria of minimum educational qualification in terms of the RTE Act and on that count also and on account of the said ineligibility, the order could not have been passed by the respondents. A plea was also raised that the provisions of TA Rules have also not been followed. 13. A plea was also raised that the provisions of TA Rules have also not been followed. 13. Without prejudice to the challenge of power to change the set up, several grievances have been raised in the writ petitions, inter alia, indicating that Teachers have been posted at Level-I and/or at Level-II despite their eligibility/ineligibility for holding the said post, not reflecting the actual number of vacant posts available as on date of counseling, allotting the place of posting in the School, which were not included in the counseling list, ignoring the seniority; despite availability of vacant post at a given School, posting is given to another School while accommodating others at the vacant position; despite availability of posts in the same village/Panchayat/Panchayat Samiti, petitioners have been posted out of the said place; several petitioners, who have been appointed under the Rules of 1971, for them also, orders have been passed under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971; the guidelines published on 08.05.2016 have been violated. 14. Reliance was placed on Chhagan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 1990 WLN (UC) 420, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief & Anr. v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav & Anr. : AIR 1988 SC 876 , Jawaharlal Nehru University v. Dr. K.S. Jawatkar & Ors. : AIR 1989 SC 1577 , Orissa Electrical Engineers’ Service Association v. State of Orissa & Ors. : AIR 1998 SC 760 , Om Prakash Rana v. Swarup Singh Tomar & Ors. : AIR 1986 SC 1672 , Amardeep Dube & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : 2003 (3) CDR 1801 (Raj.), Bahadur Ram Khileri & 70 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2010 WLC (Raj.) UC 658, State of Kerala & Ors. v. K. Prasad & Anr. : 2007 (7) SRJ 493, Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors. : (2003) 3 SCC 548 , Kailash Chandra Harijan & 10 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2006 (4) WLC 337, Palure Bhaskar Rao v. P. Ramaseshaiah & Ors. : AIR 2017 SC 1805 , Vishwajeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. no. 11082/2015 decided on 30.03.2016, H.L. Trehan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. : (1989) 1 SCC 764 and Kavi Raj & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. : (2013) 3 SCC 526 . 15. : AIR 2017 SC 1805 , Vishwajeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. no. 11082/2015 decided on 30.03.2016, H.L. Trehan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. : (1989) 1 SCC 764 and Kavi Raj & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. : (2013) 3 SCC 526 . 15. Learned Government counsel appearing for the Education Department reiterated the submissions as noticed hereinbefore, pertaining to the reopening of the issue already concluded by previous judgments of this Court and that the respondents are open to obviate the grievances raised by the petitioners, for which, Committee has already been constituted. 16. Learned Additional Government counsel appearing for the Panchayati Raj Department supported the pleas raised by the Government counsel and submitted that as the decision taken by the respondents is a policy decision, the same does not call for any interference. 17. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 18. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially appointed with the Panchayati Raj Department and by the impugned action of the respondents they are sought to be transferred/recruited with the Education Department. 19. The relevant provisions, which have implication on the present dispute, are Section 89(9) of the Act of 1994 and Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971, which provisions read as under:- “89.Constitution of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service. – (8)…….……….……..…….. (9) Persons holding posts encadred in the service shall also be eligible for appointments or promotion to posts in a State Service or under the State Government in accordance with the rules made in that behalf by the State Government and subject to terms and conditions laid down in such rules, and the persons so appointed or promoted shall count the period of their holding posts in the service constituted under this section for the purposes of seniority and pension.” “6D. In case of teachers as referred to in Section F of the Schedule, 100% vacancies shall be filled in by transfer of Primary and Upper Primary School teacher working in Panchayat Samities: Provided- (i) That the teacher shall be made available strictly on the basis of seniority; (ii) That they possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the posts under the rules; and (iii) That they have served in Panchayat Samities for at least 5 years and their record has been found satisfactory by the committee indicated in column no. 7 of the schedule.” 20. It may be noticed that the requirement of service in Panchayat Samiti for at least five years has been substituted by three years by Rajasthan Education Sub-ordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 29.05.2017. Section F of the Schedule deals with ‘Teachers’. 21. This Court while deciding the case of Surendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) after noticing almost all similar grievances, after referring to provisions of Sub-section 9 of Section 89 laid down as under:- “As per Sub-section (9) of Section 89 of the Act of 1994, the persons holding posts encadred in the services are eligible for appointments or promotion to posts in a State Service. According to the petitioners, it only gives eligibility and does not provide for their appointment by transfer. I am unable to accept this argument. When a candidate is held eligible for appointment in the State service yet cannot be appointed if a rule is made by the Government. Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 provides for appointment and promotion. Therein, option is not required to be sought from the employee and if it is taken then, proviso 1 to the Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 cannot be adhered to. The said rule is not under challenge, thus has to be given effect. In the light of the aforesaid, when Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 provides for appointment of the persons of Panchayati Raj Department, the impugned order cannot be nullified on the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is moreso when Sub-section (10) of the Section 89 of the Act of 1994 provides appointment from State Service to Panchayat Service as well. It is moreso when Sub-section (10) of the Section 89 of the Act of 1994 provides appointment from State Service to Panchayat Service as well. It is by way of transfer, thus conjoint reading of Sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 89 of the Act of 1994 shows that appointment from Panchayati Raj Department to State Service and vice versa can be made by way of transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any provision, which imposes bar for inter se transfer from Panchayati Raj Department to Education Department. It is no doubt true that petitioners' initial appointment was in a particular set up but the provisions of the Act of 1994 so as the Rules of 1971 permit appointment of persons working on the encadre post, thus this Court should not interfere in any of the order passed in consonance thereof. It is moreso when, the transfer is not going to affect service benefits of the petitioners in any manner. It is admitted by learned Additional Advocate General Mr.SK Gupta that seniority of the petitioners would be maintained from the date of appointment while effecting the impugned order except in those cases where the transfer is sought by the employee at his/her own effecting seniority. In view of the above, even if the petitioners are transferred from one set up to another, they would not loose seniority, rather it would be maintained, as explained above. Their pay and other emoluments would also be kept intact. In the background aforesaid, the impugned order is not going to affect any service benefits available to the petitioners at present. The respondents have further given justification for passing the order. It is stated that in recent past, many school from the level of primary and upper primary have been upgraded. The teachers of the Panchayati Raj Department are kept up to the level of upper primary school. Once, upper primary school is upgraded to Secondary or Senior Secondary, it has to be maintained by Education Department. The teachers working at the level of primary and upper primary, have to be governed by the Rules of 1971, if they are continued in the upgraded schools and otherwise, they became extra in Panchayati Raj Department. Once, upper primary school is upgraded to Secondary or Senior Secondary, it has to be maintained by Education Department. The teachers working at the level of primary and upper primary, have to be governed by the Rules of 1971, if they are continued in the upgraded schools and otherwise, they became extra in Panchayati Raj Department. In view of the above, a teacher working under the same school is transferred under the Rules of 1971 to continue them at the same place to save their displacement. It is to have least disturbance of the teachers even after up-gradation of the schools and smooth working of the schools. It is further a fact that if the schools are upgraded and by virtue of it, it is brought under the Rules of 1971 requiring number of teachers equivalent to the post therein, then after up-gradation, there would be scarcity of the teachers at the level of Secondary and Senior Secondary whereas Panchayati Raj Department may have excess teachers at the place after up-gradation of the schools. In the background aforesaid, I find even justification in the action of the respondents.” 22. When the said judgment in the case of Surendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) was cited in the case Bhagwana Ram (supra) before this Court, additional submissions were made based on Rules 282 and 283 of the Rules of 1996, wherein, after considering the same, this Court observed as under:- “8. In Surendra Kumar Bhatt's case(supra), a challenge was made to an order, by which petitioners therein were transferred from one department to another, that is, from Panchayat Raj Department to Education Department. Before the learned Single Bench, it was argued that after appointment under the Panchayati Raj Department, they obtained seniority position vis-a-vis teachers working in the department or at District leave and if they are brought in the Education Department, they would be effected on account of chance in seniority and promotion. One of the grounds taken therein was to the violation of seniority in giving effect to Rule 6D of Rules of 1971. It was stated that persons senior to petitioners have been kept in the Panchayati Raj Department while transferring junior persons in violation of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971. One of the grounds taken therein was to the violation of seniority in giving effect to Rule 6D of Rules of 1971. It was stated that persons senior to petitioners have been kept in the Panchayati Raj Department while transferring junior persons in violation of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971. The matter was heard and the learned Single Judge, after noticing sub-sections (9) and (10) Section 89 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, noted that persons holding post encarderd in the Panchayati Raj service shall be eligible for appointment on promotion to post in State Service and similarly, persons holding post in State Service shall also be eligible for appointment by transfer on post in cadre in the service constituted under this section. Meaning thereby that persons holding post encadred in the Panchayati Raj Department are eligible for appointment or promotion to post in the State Service. 9. Thus the argument raised that without following the provisions of Rule 282 and 283 the petitioners have been absorbed or recruited in the service of the state is unsustainable. Section 89 of the Act of 1994 reads as under: 89 “(9) Persons holding posts encadred in the service shall also be eligible for appointments or promotion to posts in a State Service or under the State Government in accordance with the rules made in that behalf by the State Government and subject to terms and conditions laid down in such rules, and the persons so appointed or promoted shall count the period of their holding posts in the service constituted under this section for the purpose of seniority and pension. (10) Persons holding appointment in a State Service shall also be eligible for appointment by transfer to a post encadred in the service constituted under this section in accordance with rules made in this behalf by the State Government and on terms and conditions laid down in those rules.” 23. Resultantly, when there is a provision in the Panchayati Raj Act itself for appointing persons from Panchayati Raj Service to the State Service and vice versa, which can be made by way of transfer there is no requirement of declaring the petitioner as surplus and then absorbing them into State Services as has been argued.” 24. Resultantly, when there is a provision in the Panchayati Raj Act itself for appointing persons from Panchayati Raj Service to the State Service and vice versa, which can be made by way of transfer there is no requirement of declaring the petitioner as surplus and then absorbing them into State Services as has been argued.” 24. In view thereof, in so far as the pleas sought to be raised based on provisions of Section 89(9) of the Act of 1994 and Rules 282 and 283 of the Rules of 1996 are concerned, as the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have exhaustively dealt with the aspect and have arrived at a conclusion that the change of set up as done by the respondents is in accordance with the provisions of law and/or is not in violation of any provision, there is no necessity to dislodge the view taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. 25. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the parties regarding requirement of consent and/or lack thereof of the petitioners for change of set up is concerned, none of the judgment, cited by learned counsel for the parties in support of the contention, pertains to transfer of an employee from one department to another department of the State on the strength of the enabling provisions in the Act and the Rules. 26. Admittedly, the employer of the petitioners is the State of Rajasthan and the departments being Panchayati Raj Department or Education Department are part of the same State. The principles, which have been laid down in the various judgments, which are sought to be relied on by learned counsel for the parties, pertain to Municipalities, Cantonment Boards, Universities, Electricity Boards and Urban Improvement Trusts, which bodies are essentially autonomous bodies and transfers were sought to be made to either autonomous bodies or institutions of the similar nature, the principles governing such bodies and institutions cannot be applied to departments of the State. 27. The above distinguishing feature is fortified from the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the leading case of General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (supra), as under:- “19. The question, however, is whether the Central Government is entitled to frame rules for transfer of the employees of the Cantonment Boards under the substituted clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 280 of the Cantonment Act. The question, however, is whether the Central Government is entitled to frame rules for transfer of the employees of the Cantonment Boards under the substituted clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 280 of the Cantonment Act. It is true that under clause (c), as it now stands, the Central Government can frame rules pertaining to conditions of service of the Cantonment Board employees. But, in our opinion, even in spite of substituted clause (c), the Central Government will not be entitled to frame rules for transfer of an employee from one Cantonment Board to another within the State for the reasons stated already, namely, (1) the Cantonment Boards are autonomous bodies; (2) the service under the Cantonment Board is neither a centralised service nor is it a service at the State level; and (3) any such transfer of an employee will mean termination of service of the employee in the Cantonment Board from where he is transferred and a fresh appointment by the Cantonment Board which he joins on such transfer. 20. So long as the Cantonment Board service is not made a centralised service or at least a State-level service, there can be no transfer from one Cantonment Board to another Cantonment Board within the same State. The Central Government has better consider the question of making the Cantonment Board service a centralised service so as to enable one Cantonment Board to transfer its employees to another Cantonment Board.” (emphasis supplied) In the case of Kavi Raj (supra) it was, inter alia, observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “24. Before concluding, it is essential to deal with certain inferences drawn by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. According to the learned Single Judge, prior consent of an employee is imperative, binding, perematory and mandatory, before he is posted on deputation outside his parent department. No statutory rule has been brought to our notice, requiring prior consent of an employee, before his deployment against a post beyond his parent cadre. The mere fact that the appellants’ consent was not sought before their posting at Government Medical College, Jammu (and/or at the hospitals associated therewith) would not, in our view have any determinative effect on the present controversy. Broadly, an employee can only be posted (or transferred) to a post against which he is selected. The mere fact that the appellants’ consent was not sought before their posting at Government Medical College, Jammu (and/or at the hospitals associated therewith) would not, in our view have any determinative effect on the present controversy. Broadly, an employee can only be posted (or transferred) to a post against which he is selected. This would ensure his stationing, within the cadre of posts, under his principal employer. His posting may, however, be regulated differently, by statutory rules, governing his conditions of service. In the absence of any such rules, an employee cannot be posted (or transferred) beyond the cadre to which he is selected, without his willingness/readiness.” 28. It has been specifically laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no statutory rule requiring prior consent of an employee, before his deployment against a post beyond his parent cadre and his posting may be regulated differently, by statutory rules, governing his conditions of service and only in absence of such Rules, an employee cannot be posted or transferred beyond the cadre to which he is selected. 29. As in the present case the transfer of the petitioners from the Panchayati Raj Department to the Education Department is specifically governed by statutory Rules, the requirement of consent as sought to be emphasized by the petitioners has no basis. 30. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Palure Bhaskar Rao (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, dealt with the nature of such transfers and observed as under:- “14. Transfer and recruitment by transfer are entirely two different concepts. No doubt transfer can be from one category to another category or within the class if the rule permits interchangeability of the categories within a class. Any other transfer both intra category and inter category are in fact, under law is a selection and appointment by way of a transfer from one category to another or from one class to another class or from one service to another. If it is a transfer simplicitor it conveys a different meaning and if it is a recruitment by transfer, as we have clarified above conveys a different concept altogether. The latter is a mode of selection/recruitment to a service. 15. Transfer in relation to service simply means a change of a place of employment within an organization. If it is a transfer simplicitor it conveys a different meaning and if it is a recruitment by transfer, as we have clarified above conveys a different concept altogether. The latter is a mode of selection/recruitment to a service. 15. Transfer in relation to service simply means a change of a place of employment within an organization. Such transfer being to a similar post in the same cadre and therefore obviously such a transfer does not result in the termination of his lien in the parent cadre but recruitment by transfer is a different service concept altogether. It is a method of recruitment to a service, in the instant case to a different category in the same service initially and thereafter to a different service altogether. Once an employee undergoes a transfer by way of a recruitment to a different cadre or to a different service, the employee loses his lien in the parent cadre/service. In that process, there is an induction to a new cadre and sometimes with a different type of duty. Such induction has distinct consequence on the career of the employee different from what would have been the normal course had he continued in the parent service. Thus the recruitment by transfer terminates the lien of an employee in the parent cadre/service whereas transfer simplicitor to a similar post in the same cadre results only in change of place of employment and therefore there is no termination of lien.” 31. In the above judgment, wherein, the principles regarding recruitment by transfer has been enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court, no requirement regarding consent of the employee has been indicated as the pre-requisite for undertaking such transfer. 32. Consequently, the submissions made, in this regard, have no substance and the same are, therefore, rejected. 33. In the above judgment, wherein, the principles regarding recruitment by transfer has been enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court, no requirement regarding consent of the employee has been indicated as the pre-requisite for undertaking such transfer. 32. Consequently, the submissions made, in this regard, have no substance and the same are, therefore, rejected. 33. As per provisions of the Rules of 1971, as amended in the year 2005, 100% vacancies of Teachers are required to be filled in by transfer of Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers working in Panchayat Samiti and, consequently, the mode of recruitment for Teachers under the Rules of 1971 is totally dependent on transfer of Teachers from the Panchayati Raj Department and, therefore, the said recruitment under the Rules of 1971 cannot be left at the discretion/consent/mercy of the Teachers working with the Panchayati Raj Department, who by refusing to be transferred, can frustrate the entire recruitment to the post of Teachers under the Rules of 1971. 34. It would also be relevant to notice that the intention of the Rules, in not leaving it to the discretion of the Teachers/based on the consent of the Teachers, who are sought to be transferred is, fortified from the fact that prior to the amendment in the year 2005, it was provided that vacancies shall be filled in by direct recruitment and from the Teachers from Panchayati Raj Department and the ratio was 25% from direct recruitment and 75% by way of transfer from Panchayati Raj Department. 35. An exception as under was provided, which exception has been deleted with coming into force of the amendment in the year 2005:- “Exception – If suitable persons are not available for appointment by transfer from Panchayat Samities in a particular year or those appointed do not join within 30 days of the appointment than appointment by direct recruitment in relaxation of the prescribed percentage may be made in the same manner specified in these rules elsewhere.” 36. The above exception envisaged a situation where the person appointed may not join within 30 days, however, the deletion of the above exception is a clear indication that no discretion is left with the Teacher once the order for transfer/appointment is made under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971. 37. The above exception envisaged a situation where the person appointed may not join within 30 days, however, the deletion of the above exception is a clear indication that no discretion is left with the Teacher once the order for transfer/appointment is made under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971. 37. In view of the above discussion, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties seeking to emphasize that the petitioners cannot be transferred without seeking their consent/in absence of their consent/willingness have no substance and, therefore, the same are rejected. 38. So far as the submissions pertaining to Rules of 2011 are concerned, the contention has been noticed to be rejected. The said Rules of 2011 apply to the transferred activities and the transferred employees, as defined under the Rules of 2011, which read as under:- “(iii) “Transferred Activities” means activities, schemes, programmes, missions of the Central or State Government entrusted to Panchayati Raj Institutions time to time; (iv) “Transferred Employees” means employees working on the posts relating to activities transferred to the Panchayati Raj Institutions; and” 39. A bare look at the definition of transferred activities and transferred employees would reveal that the same pertains to activities, schemes, programmes etc. entrusted to Panchayati Raj Institutions and the employees working on the posts relating to activities transferred to the Panchayati Raj Institutions. 40. In the present case, activity/employee concerned has not been entrusted/transferred to the Panchayati Raj Institution, the said activity was already with the Panchayati Raj Department and, therefore, the said Rules of 2011 have no application to the facts of the present case and, consequently, the submissions made in this regard are also rejected. 41. The submissions made with regard to provisions of RTE Act also have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the qualification required under Section 23 of the RTE Act, would even otherwise apply to the petitioners even if they were to continue with the Panchayati Raj Department. 42. The grievance raised by petitioners regarding violation of provisions of T.A. Rules on the ground that the orders impugned do not provide for joining time and travelling allowance also by itself cannot render the entire exercise made under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 as invalid. 42. The grievance raised by petitioners regarding violation of provisions of T.A. Rules on the ground that the orders impugned do not provide for joining time and travelling allowance also by itself cannot render the entire exercise made under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 as invalid. If the petitioners are entitled to payment of T.A. and to avail joining time under the T.A. Rules, the said deficiency, on a representation, can be rectified by the respondents. 43. In view of the above discussion, the additional challenge laid by the petitioners, beyond what has already been adjudicated by prior judgments of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) & Bhagwana Ram (supra), has no substance and the same is, therefore, rejected. 44. Coming to the various individual grievances raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions, which have been noticed hereinbefore i.e. the Teachers have been posted at Level-I and/or at Level-II despite their eligibility/ineligibility for holding the said post, not reflecting the actual number of vacant posts available as on date of counseling, allotting the place of posting in the School, which were not included in the counseling list, ignoring the seniority; despite available of the vacant post at a given School, posting is given to another School while accommodating others at the vacant position; despite availability of posts in the same village/Panchayat/Panchayat Samiti, petitioners have been posted out of the said place; those who have been appointed under the Rules of 1971, for them also, orders have been passed under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 and that provisions of T.A. Rules have been violated. 45. From the perusal of the facts in several cases and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the grievances raised by the petitioners, appear to have some substance. Admittedly, the respondent department has issued various guidelines including dated 08.05.2016 dealing with the said aspect regarding posting and once guidelines are issued, the respondent-department is bound to follow the said guidelines. 46. As also noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have by order dated 17.08.2017 formed Grievance Redressal Committees (‘the Committees’) for redressing grievances, pertaining to the charge of setup for the year 2017-18 and the respondents are bound to dealt with the grievances raised by the petitioners appropriately. 47. 46. As also noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have by order dated 17.08.2017 formed Grievance Redressal Committees (‘the Committees’) for redressing grievances, pertaining to the charge of setup for the year 2017-18 and the respondents are bound to dealt with the grievances raised by the petitioners appropriately. 47. Looking to the overall circumstances of the case, it is directed as under:- (a) The challenge laid by the petitioners to the change of setup/transfer from the Panchayati Raj Department to the Education Department, has no substance and the same is, therefore, rejected. (b) The petitioners would be free to raise their individual grievances before the Committees setup by the respondent Department by its order dated 17.08.2017. The petitioners would raise their grievances, if any, before the respective Committees in writing by 29.01.2018. (c) The Committees shall decide the grievances, if raised, based on requirements of provisions of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 and the guidelines dated 08.05.2016, 09.05.2016, 31.05.2016 & 01.06.2016, as indicated in the order dated 17.08.2017, within a period of 15 days thereafter i.e. by 15.02.2018. The Committees shall ensure that while passing the orders the grievances raised by the petitioners are appropriately dealt with. (d) In cases, where interim orders have been passed, they shall remain in force till the representation, if made by the petitioner/grievance raised by the petitioner, is decided by the Committee. (e) The petitioners would follow the directions passed by the Committees. (f) Those petitioners, who choose not to raise any grievance by 29.01.2018 before the Committee, in their cases, the interim orders, if any, would come to an end on 29.01.2018. (g) It is made clear that the directions issued would apply only to the petitioners before this Court and those who have already accepted the postings, pursuant to the orders passed under Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971, would not be entitled to approach the Committees in terms of the directions issued by this Court. 48. With the above directions, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of.