ORDER : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are working as Inspectors (LR) aggrieved against the orders dated 28.09.2019 passed by the Collector, Land Records (‘LR’), Pali, dated 02.09.2019, 17.09.2019 and 29.09.2019 passed by the Collector (LR), Hanumangarh, dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Collector (LR), Dungarpur, dated 29.09.2019 passed by the Collector (LR), Sirohi, dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, dated 25.09.2019 and 27.09.2019 passed by the Collector (LR), Udaipur, whereby the petitioners have been transferred within the district/division respectively. 2. Challenge to the transfers has been laid based on the interpretation put by the petitioners on the provisions of Rule 173 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules of 1957’), which deals with transfer of the Inspector (LR) with the submission that proviso to Rule, which stipulates that State Government may direct the Collector/Divisional Commissioner for transfer of a Inspector (LR), necessarily means that the Collector/Divisional Commissioner can effect transfer only, if the State Government directs and in absence of any direction by the State in the present cases, the exercise of power by the Collector/Divisional Commissioner to transfer within the district/division is without jurisdiction. 3. The provision of Rule 173 of the Rules of 1957, which deals with the transfer of Inspector (LR), reads as under:- “173. Transfer – The Collector may transfer an Inspector of Land Records anywhere within the District, the Divisional Commissioner may transfer an Inspector of Land Records anywhere within the Division and the Board of Revenue may transfer an Inspector of Land Records anywhere within the State: Provided that the State Government may direct the Collector, Divisional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be, for the transfer of an Inspector of Land Records.” 4. Similar provision exists for transfer of Patwaris under Rule 9(ia) of the Rules of 1957, which insofar as relevant reads as under:- “9(ia) The Sub-Divisional Officer may transfer a Patwari anywhere within the Sub-Division and the Collector may transfer a Patwari anywhere within the District: Provided that the State Government may direct the Collector for the transfer of a Patwari anywhere within the District.” 5. This Court while dealing with provision of Rule 9(ia) of the Rules of 1957 in the case of Gopalram v. State of Raj & Anr., SBCW No.14402/2019 and other connected matters, decided separately today (i.e. 03.01.2020), has come to the following conclusion:- “A bare reading of the provisions of Rule 9(ia) reveals that the power of transfer within sub-division has been conferred on the Sub Divisional Officer and the power to transfer anywhere within the district has been conferred on the Collector. The proviso to the main provision stipulates that the State Government may direct the Collector for the transfer of a Patwari anywhere within the district. While the case of the petitioners is that the proviso restricts the power of the Collector to effect transfer within the district, which can only be done on the directions of the State Government, the case of the State Government is that the proviso does not restrict the main provision, but in addition, confers power on the State Government to give direction in case, the Collector is not inclined to effect transfer. The function of the proviso in statute has been summarized by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Sundaram Pillai (supra), wherein after taking into consideration almost all the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners, it was laid down as under:- “43. We need not multiply authorities after authorities on this point because the legal position seems to be clearly and manifestly well established. To sum up, a proviso may serve four different purposes: (1) qualifying or excepting certain provisions from the main enactment; (2) it may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of the enactment by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the enactment workable; (3) it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive enactment itself; and (4) it may be used merely to act as an optional addenda to the enactment with the sole object of explaining the real intendment of the statutory provision. 44. 44. These seem to be by and large the main purport and parameters of a proviso.” It is also well settled principle of construction that unless clearly indicated, a proviso would not take away substantive right given by Section or Sub-Section and that the proviso cannot be so construed as to subsume the main provision and thereby nullify the right conferred by the main provision. In Satnam Singh v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, (1997) 3 SCC 353 , it was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “It is a rule of law that a proviso should receive a strict construction. A proviso has to be strictly construed in as much as it carves out an exception to the general rule. The general rule enacted in the main part is not to be unduly restricted by expanding the context of the proviso which is intended to carve out the exception from the general rule.” Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India v. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, (2007) 12 SCC 210 , has laid down as under:- “20. The role of a proviso is well-known. A proviso may restrict the operation of the main provision, but by reason thereof the rights and liabilities contained in the main provision cannot altogether be taken away.” A plain reading of provision 9(ia) of the Rules of 1957 reveals that power has been conferred on the Collector to transfer a Patwari anywhere within the District. The proviso merely empowers the State Government also to direct the Collector for the transfer of the Patwaris anywhere within the district. In case, the proviso is construed to mean that the power can be exercised by the Collector only on the direction of the State Government, by necessary implication, the main provision would be rendered redundant and the same would only be a machinery provision i.e. the Collector is the authority, who would pass orders on the directions of the State Government, which cannot and is not the purport of the provision. In case, the intention of the legislature was that inter-district transfers would be made only at the directions of the State Government, there was no necessity to indicate the power of the Collector to transfer a Patwari within the district. A simple provision conferring the power on the State Government would have been enacted. In case, the intention of the legislature was that inter-district transfers would be made only at the directions of the State Government, there was no necessity to indicate the power of the Collector to transfer a Patwari within the district. A simple provision conferring the power on the State Government would have been enacted. Apparently, the provision for transfer of the Patwari anywhere within the district by Collector on direction of the State Government has been enacted to take care of contingency, where either the State Government at its level is of the opinion that transfers are required to be effected and/or the Collector is not inclined to transfer a Patwari and the State Government comes to a conclusion otherwise. In view of the above plain reading of the provisions and the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to interpretation of proviso to the main provision, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be accepted. It is held that the Collector has the power to order for transfer of the Patwari anywhere within the district and the State Government has the power to direct the Collector for transfer of a Patwari anywhere within the district, in case, exigency arises as discussed hereinbefore.” 6. In view of the above, for interpretation of the provisions of Rule 173 of the Rules of 1957, which are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 9(ia) of the Rules of 1957, the same interpretation would apply and the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners, cannot be accepted. 7. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.