JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. The instant bunch of 91 intra court appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.284/2022 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rekha Kumari) has been preferred by State of Rajasthan for assailing the common impugned order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench accepting 99 writ petitions [led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3299/2022 – Anju Bala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]. Details of the intra court appeals and the writ petitions are mentioned in the Schedule appended to this judgment. 2. The basic controversy involved in these appeals is as to whether the employees, whose parent cadre is Medical and Health Department and whose services have been provided to the Panchayati Raj institution can be transferred by the Medical and Health Department without following the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2011’), which reads as below:- “8. Transfer.-Transfer of such transferred employees shall be made under the transfer policy and directions issued by the State Government from time to time, by:- i. “the Administration and Establishment Committee of the Panchayat Samiti concerned within the same Panchayat Samiti. ii. the District Establishment Committee of the Zila Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same District. iii. the department concerned from one district to another district with the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department.” 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Samleta [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.736/2018 decided on 11.10.2018] took a view that as per Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, when an employee, whose services are governed by the Panchayati Raj Act, is proposed to be transferred from one district to another, there is a prerequisite condition of obtaining prior consent of Panchayati Raj Department irrespective of the fact that the employee is surplus in the Panchayati Raj Department. This court is apprised that the State of Rajasthan has assailed the Division Bench order in the case of Samleta (supra) before Hon’ble the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.41290/2019 which is pending. 4. In the cases of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mool Shankar [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.683/2021] and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. 4. In the cases of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mool Shankar [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.683/2021] and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Krishna Devi [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.17/2022] decided on 14.01.2022, involving identical controversy, Division Bench of this Court proceeded to reiterate the view taken in the case of Samleta (supra) and held that while effecting inter-district transfers of the employees transferred to the Panchayati Raj Department, the powers are retained by the department concerned, but in all such cases, the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department has to be obtained. Such requirement of consent cannot be brought down to a mere formality by suggesting that the same is not mandatory but directory in nature. At the same time, the Hon’ble Division Bench noticed that this requirement has brought about a grim situation. The administration is saddled with two employees against one vacant post in some cases and in some cases the posts are lying vacant without anybody looking after it. The court felt that even if the situation has been brought about on account of administrative errors, a way out of this impasse is required to be found particularly looking to the great challenges that the Government administration in general and the Health Department in particular is facing due to recent third wave of Corona virus. Observing this, the court went on to hold that there was no limitation or inhibition under the Rules by virtue of which, the ex-post facto consent of the Panchayati Raj Department can not be obtained. It was observed as below :- “In this context, we do not find any limitation or inhibition under the Rules by virtue of which the ex-post facto consent of the Panchayati Raj department can not be obtained. The consent of the Panchayati Raj department is of course needed before effecting inter-district transfer as we have already concluded. However, there is nothing in the Rules to suggest that the same is a sine qua non and if the consent is obtained post facto, the order of transfer cannot be validated. We notice that in the judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Samleta (D.B. Spl. Appl. We notice that in the judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Samleta (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 736/2018), the Court had confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge setting aside orders of transfers under similar circumstances where the consent of the Panchayati Raj department was not obtained. In that case, the counsel for the employees-original petitioners had argued that the ex-post facto sanction granted by the Panchayati Raj department would not save the order of transfer. The Division Bench while confirming the view of the learned Single Judge had not given any declaration on this question. The judgment on this point is thus sub silentio and in our view does not lay down any ratio of a binding nature on this question. Under the circumstances, we reiterate that the Rules of 2011 do not prohibit ex-post facto sanction being granted by the Panchayati Raj department and if such ex-post facto sanction is obtained hereafter, it would be open for the Government to regularize all orders of inter district transfers.” 5. The present set of appeals involves inter-district transfers by the Medical and Health Department of its employees, whose services have earlier been transferred to the Panchayati Raj Department. During pendency of the appeals, learned AAG Shri Rajpurohit, has filed an additional affidavit with official note- sheets, as per which, a proposal was moved to grant ex-post facto sanction to validate transfer orders of surplus transferred employees of the Panchayati Raj Department. 6. It is noteworthy from the affidavit that as per the distribution of Departments amongst the Cabinet of Ministers, Shri Parsadi Lal Meena, the Minister for Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan has been given independent charge of Medical and Health Services under the Panchayati Raj Department. 7. After obtaining legal opinion and referring to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Mool Shankar (supra), the file was moved for grant of ex-post facto sanction to validate the transfer orders passed earlier by the Medical and Health Department. The Departmental officers proposed issuance of ex-post facto sanction and the Minister Shri Meena has approved the said proposal on 21.03.2022. 8. The Departmental officers proposed issuance of ex-post facto sanction and the Minister Shri Meena has approved the said proposal on 21.03.2022. 8. As a consequence of the above development, we are of the view that the Panchayati Raj Department has lawfully granted ex-post facto sanction as per the requirement of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 to validate the questioned transfer orders. 9. It was the fervent contention of the learned counsel for the respondent employees that ex-post facto consent does not relate to the transfer orders at hand because the date mentioned in the office note is 22.11.2021. This contention is not tenable for the simple reason that this date refers to the distribution of departments amongst the Ministers, whereby independent charge of Medical and Health Services coming under the purview of Panchayati Raj Department was assigned to Shri Parsadi Lal Meena, the Minister for Medical and Health Services. As is evident from the note-sheets annexed with the additional affidavit, both the Departments have concurred on the transfers, which are subject matter of challenge in this litigation. The action so taken is compliant of the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Mool Shankar (supra) and hence, the requirement of consent of the Panchayati Raj Department for effecting transfers of the transferred employees of the Panchayati Raj Department has been satisfied. 10. Consequently, the appeals deserve to be accepted. The impugned order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench in the writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule is reversed. The appeals are allowed, accordingly.