ORDER : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders whereby they have been transferred by the Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services and Additional Director (Admin.) Panchayati Raj (Medical) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. As all the writ petitioners have raised similar issue, i.e. violation of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities), Rules, 2011 (‘Rules of 2011’), all the petitions have been taken up simultaneously for hearing and disposal. 3. The facts of Ravindra Kumar Tailor vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8828/2022 are being illustratively indicated. The petitioner, a Nurse Grade-II, was appointed by order dated 25.03.2008. During the course of his service, by order dated 03.12.2015 while working at C.H.C., Devli, Tonk, he was posted under working arrangement to A.N.M. Training Centre, Bhilwara. By order dated 31.12.2020, the petitioner was transferred/posted at A.N.M. Training Centre, Bhilwara by indicating the same as against the post of PHN. 4. While the petitioner was serving on the said post, an order dated 18.02.2022 (Annex.5) came to be issued by the Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan, inter-alia providing that all those whose salary was not being drawn from the post, where they were working, and was being drawn from any other place, they must report at the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer. 5. By impugned order dated 15.06.2022 indicating that as the person(s) named therein were surplus on account of their working beyond the sanctioned posts, they were adjusted at the post indicated against their names. It was further indicated that the order was passed subject to decision in DBSAW No.271/2022 at Jodhpur and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6421/2022 at Jaipur Bench. 6. Other petitions pertain to the orders passed transferring the petitioners from one post to another, which are inter district/within the same Panchayat Samiti/from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petitions have been filed. 8. 6. Other petitions pertain to the orders passed transferring the petitioners from one post to another, which are inter district/within the same Panchayat Samiti/from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petitions have been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioners is in violation of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, inasmuch as the petitioners who are the transferred employees, could only be transferred by the Administration and Establishment Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, within the same Panchayat Samiti, District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same district and the Department concerned from one district to another district, with the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department. It is submitted that the orders impugned which have been passed by the Secretary, are in violation of provisions wherein the transfers have taken place within the same Panchayat Samiti/from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same district, or where the transfer is from one district to another district, for lack of consent of the Panchayati Raj Department. 9. Further submissions were made that merely on account of the fact that the petitioners questioning order dated 15.06.2022 have been indicated as ‘surplus’, which aspect has been disputed in several cases based on the material produced therein; the provisions of Rules of 2011 cannot be given a go bye. 10. Reliance was placed on order in Samleta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11862/2017 decided on 14.11.2017, upheld in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Samleta : D.B.S.A.W. No.736/2018 decided on 11.10.2018. 11. Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Samleta : D.B.S.A.W. No.736/2018 decided on 11.10.2018. 11. Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 12. Submissions were made that by way of interim order, in some petitions, it was ordered that the petitioners may join the transferred post without prejudice to their contentions in the present petitions and therefore, the orders impugned be set aside and the respondents be directed to permit the petitioners to join back on the post from where they were transferred. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents made vehement submissions that the judgment in the case of Samleta (supra), which laid down the requirement of compliance of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, even in cases where the employees on the post are surplus, is sub-silento, inasmuch as the same has not taken into consideration the definition of the transferred employees, as provided under Rule 2 (iv) of the Rules of 2011. It is submitted that the Rule defines the transferred employees as those employees working on the post relating to the activities transferred to the Panchayati Raj institution, which necessarily means, the sanctioned post and as the petitioners are surplus employees, they cannot claim the status as transferred employees and consequential compliance of requirements of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011. The said aspect was not considered by the Court in the case of Samleta (supra), either by the Single Judge or the Division Bench and, therefore, the reliance placed in this regard is of no avail to the petitioners. 14. Further submissions have been made that the order passed in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) also suffers from the same aspect of sub-silento, as the Court did not consider the plea raised by the respondents and has wrongly considered that consent has been given by the Panchayati Raj Department to the transfers of the surplus employees and, therefore, the judgment in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) also is of no avail to the petitioners. 15. It was submitted that even in the case of transfer from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti or within the same Panchayat Samiti also, even if the employees are not surplus, the petitioners have no locus standi to question their transfer as in terms of Rules 289 and 290 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 the grievance in this regard can only be raised by the Panchayati Raj Institution and therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners in this regard also has no substance and the petitions deserve dismissal. 16. Reliance was placed on Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101 . 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in rejoidner, raised serious objections to the plea raised by the respondents claiming the orders in the cases of Samleta (supra) and Rekha Kumari (supra), as sub-silento. Submissions have been made that the respondents having taken the advantage of the determination made in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra), whereby the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, allowed the appeals filed by the State; they now cannot turn around and even claim the said judgment as subsilento. It was submitted that as the orders impugned dated 15.06.2022 were made subject to decision in SAW No.271/2022, which came to be decided alongwith the Bunch led by Rekha Kumari’s case, wherein the petitions have been decided by holding post facto compliance of the provision of Rule 8 as sufficient, as in the present cases, the compliance of Rule 8 has not been made, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside. 18. 18. Learned counsel made submissions that the plea raised regarding petitioners being not transferred employees, is also baseless, inasmuch as the entire activities of the Department to a certain level, wherein the petitioners were working, came to be transferred to the Panchayati Raj Department, and irrespective of the fact as to whether the petitioners were working on the post purportedly sanctioned or not, they became transferred employees by all means and therefore, the submissions made in this regard, has no substance. It was reiterated that the petitions be allowed and the orders impugned be quashed and set aside. 19. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. The order impugned dated 15.06.2022, inter-alia, indicates as under:- ^^vkns'k vketu dks lgt o lqyHk mipkj miyC/k djkus ,oa O;kid tufgr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds fuEukafdr uflZaxdehZ tks HkhyokM+k ftys ds fofHkUu fpfdRlk laLFkkuksa esa Lohd`r inksa ls vf/kd dk;Zjr gksus ds dkj.k vf/k'ks"k gS] dks fjDr inksa ij muds uke ds lEeq[k vafdr LFkkuksa ij rqjUr izHkko ls lek;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS %& Ø-la- uke dkfeZd inuke orZeku inLFkkiu LFkku tgka ls dkfeZd vf/k'ks"k gS uohu lek;kstu LFkku 8- jfoUnz dqekj Vsyj ulZ f}rh; ,,u,e çf'k{k.k dsUnz] HkhyokM+k Vªksek lsUVj] lgkMk] HkhyokM+k mDr vkns'k l{ke Lrj ls vuqeksfnr gSA mijksDr lHkh lek;kstu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB tks/kiqj esa nk;j Mh-ch-,l-,-MCY;w- 271@2022 ,oa ek- mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj esa nk;j ,l-ch-flfoy fjV la[;k 6521@2022 ds vafre fu.kZ;k/khu fd;s tkrs gSA ,l-Mh-@& ¼lqjs'k uoy½ funs'kd ¼vjktif=r½ fpfdRlk ,oa Lok- lsok;sa- ,oa vfr- funs'kd ¼ç'kklu½] iapk;rh jkt ¼fpfdRlk½ foHkkx] jkt- t;iqj** 21. A perusal of above order would indicate that by indicating that the petitioners are surplus, orders posting the petitioners from one place to another were passed and made subject to the decision in SAW No.271/2022. The aforesaid appeal (SAW No.271/2022-State vs. Anju Bala) arose from the judgment in Anju Bala vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No.3299/2022 decided on 09.03.2022, wherein the Single Judge on coming to the conclusion that the Division Bench in the case of Samleta (supra), had specifically come to the conclusion that even in the case of transfer of surplus employees, consent was required to be obtained from the Panchayati Raj Department, allowed the writ petitions. The Division Bench while allowing the SAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided with Bunch led by the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) and other connected matters, inter-alia, observed as under : “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 notesheets, 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. 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. 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 expost facto sanction and the Minister Shri Meena has approved the said proposal on 21.03.2022. 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. 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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 22. In the case of Samleta (supra), a Coordinate Bench inter-alia, directed as under : “2. As per sub-rule (iii) whilst the department concerned i.e. the Medical and Health Department would be entitled to transfer ANMs from one district to the other, but since the employees become employees of Panchayati Raj Institutions, this has to be with the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department. 3. Concededly no such consent was taken. I note that vide order dated 20.9.2017 it was directed that joining of duties by the petitioner pursuant to impugned transfer order dated 15.9.2017 at the place where she has been transferred shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. 4. The respondents have not been able to show to the Court as to why consent of the Panchayti Raj Department is not warranted. 5. The petition is disposed of quashing the transfer order dated 15.9.2017 qua the petitioner.” 23. When the said judgment was appealed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the submissions made including the submission that the surplus employees would not be governed by the said provision, came to the following conclusion : “We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned order as well as the material placed on record. Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transfer Activities) Rules, 2011 clearly postulates that when a person is transferred from one District to another, there is a prerequisite condition of obtaining prior consent of Panchayati Raj Department. In the present case, the respondent is an employee of the Panchayati Raj Institution and she has been transferred from one district to another. In the present case, the respondent is an employee of the Panchayati Raj Institution and she has been transferred from one district to another. Admittedly, no consent as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 was obtained from the Panchayati Raj Department and therefore, her transfer is bad and in violation of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011. Even in the cases of transfer of surplus employees, consent has to be obtained from the Panchayati Raj Department. In view of the above observations, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) 24. From the above, it is apparent that the Division Bench in the case of Samleta (supra) specifically came to the conclusion that even a surplus employee was governed by the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 and when relying on the said judgment in the case of Samleta (supra), the judgment in the case of Anju Bala was delivered by the Single Judge, in appeal preferred against the judgment in the case of Anju Bala, which was decided in the Bunch led by the case of Rekha Kumari (supra), the Division Bench, as quoted hereinbefore, specifically came to the conclusion that the proposal was moved by the State granting ex post facto sanction validating the transfer orders of the surplus/transferred employees of the Panchayati Raj Department, a lawful post facto sanction as per the requirement of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 to validate the question transfer orders was given by the Panchayti Raj Department and the action so taken, was in compliance of the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Mool Shanker (supra) and the requirement of consent of Panchayati Raj Department, for effecting transfer of the transferred employees of the Panchayati Raj Department, has been satisfied and consequently allowed the appeals. 25. 25. The above determination made by the Division Bench in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) is categorical requiring the compliance of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 and only on account of post facto consent granted by the Panchayati Raj Department, by reiterating the requirements of the compliance of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, the orders of transfer of surplus employees, were upheld by the Division Bench. 26. Faced with the judgment in the cases of Samleta (supra) and Rekha Kumari (supra), subject to which the orders impugned were passed, it is submitted that the said orders/judgments are subsilento decisions, as the same have failed to take into consideration the definition of transferred employees as provided in Rule 2 (iv) of the Rules of 2011. 27. It is submitted that the issue was specifically raised in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra). 28. Though it is the specific case of the State that the issue/plea was raised in the appeal in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra). A bare look at the judgment in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra) reveals that there is no whisper of the State having raised the said issue before the Division Bench. Merely raising an issue in the memo of appeal and thereafter not pressing the same during arguments amounts to abandonment of the issue/plea. Having failed to raise the issue before the Division Bench and only relying on the post facto consent granted in term of judgment in the case of Mool Shankar (supra) and as a similar post facto consent is missing in the present cases, to again fall back on the same argument, which apparently was not pressed/abandoned before the Division Bench, by relying on plea of sub silento, the attempt made cannot be accepted. 29. However, looking to the vehemence on part of the counsel for the State with which the Division Bench judgments in the case of Semleta (supra), Mool Shankar (supra) and Rekha Kumari (supra) irrespective of the fact whether the issue in the form as now being raised was raised earlier or raised and not pressed, have been labelled as having been passed in sub silento, the issue raised in the present form is being decided. 30. The relevant provisions of the Rules, inter-alia, reads as under : “2. 30. The relevant provisions of the Rules, inter-alia, reads as under : “2. Interpretation- (1) In these rules, unless the subject or the context otherwise requires: - (i) xxx (ii) xxx (iii) “Transferred Activities” means activities, schemes, programmes, mission of Central or State Government entrusted to Panchayati Raj Institutions time to time. (iv) “Transferred Employees” means employees working on the post relating to activities transferred to the Panchayati Raj Institutions. 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 Parishad concerned from one Panchayat 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.” 31. It would be relevant to notice that on account of 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India, the State passed various orders to ensure transfer of various activities in terms of 11th Schedule of the Constitution to the Panchayati Raj Institutions. The relevant foundational document in this regard being order dated 02.10.2010 (Annex.7), wherein the activities from Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department to the Panchayati Raj Institutions were transferred. The relevant foundational document in this regard being order dated 02.10.2010 (Annex.7), wherein the activities from Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department to the Panchayati Raj Institutions were transferred. The relevant part whereof reads as under :- ^^fo"k;@dk;Zdykiksa dk gLrkUrj.k iapk;rh jkt foHkkx ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds v/khu lapkfyr lHkh jk"Vªh; dk;ZØe] xfrfof/k;ka foHkkx }kjk tkjh fd;s tkus okys uhfrxr@rduhdh@lkef;d fu.kZ;ksa vkSj fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds v/;/khu jgrs gq, lacaf/kr iapk;r jkt laLFkku }kjk fu"iknu@fØ;kUo;u fd;k tkosxkA fofHkUu dk;Zdykiksa ds rgr vkoafVr HkkSfrd ,oa foRrh; y{;ksa dh izkfIr lqfuf'pr djus dk nkf;Ro iapk;rh jkt laLFkkuksa dk gksxkA fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; foHkkx ds lanHkZ esa xzkeh.k {ks= esa lHkh midsUnz ,MiksLV] vixzsMsM lc lsUVj ,oa izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz e; LVkQ iapk;r lfefr ds v/khu fd;s tkrs gSA ftyk Lrj 1- ftyk Lrjh; eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh@vfrfjDr eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh ¼ifjokj dY;k.k½@mi eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh@ ¼ifjokj dY;k.k@LokLF;½@ftyk çtuu ,oa f'k'kq LokLF; vf/kdkjh@ftyk {k; jksx vf/kdkjh ,oa muds dk;kZy; ds vU; vf/kdkjh ,oa deZpkjh ftyk ifj"kn ds v/khu fd;k tkrk gSA iapk;r lfefr Lrj 1- CykWd eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ,oa CykWd Lrj ij dk;Zjr lHkh deZpkjh rFkk izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz ij dk;Zjr fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ,oa vU; deZpkjh iapk;r lfefr ds v/khu dk;Z lEiUu djsaxsA xzke iapk;r Lrj 1- mi LokLF; dsUnz ij dk;Zjr ,-,u-,e-] th-,u-,e-] iq:"k LokLF; dk;ZdRrkZ viuk dk;Z xzke iapk;r ds v/khu dk;Z djsaxsA** 32. A perusal of the above would reveal that the entire staff, which was working at the relevant time at various district, Panchayati Samiti and Gram Panchayat level, was placed under the Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti and Gram Panchayat. No caveat/exception regarding any of the employees working at three levels was made. 33. Whereafter, for regulating the transferred activities, Rules of 2011 were notified, which inter-alia, dealt with control of transferred employees, conduct of business, sanctions, responsibility and funds pertaining to the transferred activities. 34. The definition of the transferred activities and transferred employees, as noticed hereinbefore are explicit, as the Rules of 2011 came after the activities stood transferred inter-alia through the order dated 02.10.2010, all the activities, schemes, programmes etc. entrusted to the Panchayati Raj Institutions from time to time were defined as ‘transferred activities’ and without any restriction, it was provided that the employees working on the posts relating to activities transferred to Panchayati Raj Institutions, would be ‘transferred employees’. entrusted to the Panchayati Raj Institutions from time to time were defined as ‘transferred activities’ and without any restriction, it was provided that the employees working on the posts relating to activities transferred to Panchayati Raj Institutions, would be ‘transferred employees’. Once the specified activities under the Medical and Health Department were transferred to Panchayati Raj Institutions, as a necessary corollary, those working at the transferred activities at various level/in relation to transferred activities, came under the authority of the Panchayati Raj Institutions. 35. The indication made in the definition regarding the employees working on the post relating to the activities transferred to the Panchayati Raj Institutions, the emphasis essentially is with regard to those working in relation to the activities transferred and not, as to whether the posts in question were sanctioned or on account of the nature of the transferred activities, they were working beyond the sanctioned posts. Apparently, if the intention of the Rule making authority was to bring only those working on the sanctioned posts within the purview of the transferred employees, the Rules would have clearly indicated so and also provided for treatment of those who were not working on the sanctioned posts, absence of which aspect is not without reason, as the words ‘working on the posts relating to activities transferred’ have not been qualified by ‘sanctioned posts’ and therefore, the definition would take within its sweep, both those working on the sanctioned posts and/or the surplus employees. 36. The plea raised, seeking to confine the definition of transferred employees to only those who are working on sanctioned posts, also cannot be countenanced, for the simple reason that the same would lead to undesired consequences, as would be evident from the facts of the present case, wherein petitioner-Ravindra Kumar Tailor, was posted as Nurse Grade-II at C.H.C., Devli Tonk, which admittedly was a sanctioned post and therefore, the petitioner was governed by the Rules of 2011, however, he was transferred on 03.12.2015 from C.H.C., Devli, Tonk to ANM Training Centre, Bhilwara under the working arrangement, which was followed by another order dated 31.12.2020 whereby he was posted at the said ANM Training Centre against the post of PHN. Whereafter, by order dated 15.06.2022 by indicating him surplus, he has been transferred. 37. Whereafter, by order dated 15.06.2022 by indicating him surplus, he has been transferred. 37. If the plea raised by the respondents is accepted, the petitioner who till 03.12.2015 was governed by the Rules of 2011, at the instance of the respondents, by way of posting him against the post/under working arrangement, he was taken out of the purview of the definition of transferred employees/Rules, which status continued till passing of the order dated 15.06.2022, when again he would be within the purview of the definition. The plea as raised would make the status of the employees as floating i.e. they would be termed as ‘transferred employees’ and would be governed by the Rules of 2011 one day and on the next day, by passing orders to post them against the post/working arrangement, they would be taken out of purview of the Rules of 2011, which position cannot be accepted. The only parameter for examining the applicability of the provisions of the Rules essentially is that the employee(s) must be performing his/her duties in relation to transferred activities only. 38. As such, the attempt made on the part of the respondents to confine the definition of transferred employees to only those working on sanctioned posts/taking the surplus out of said definition only for the purpose of getting out of the compliance of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 cannot be appreciated. It is not the case of the respondents that all those purportedly surplus, their salary also is being drawn from a post, which is not part of the transferred activities/in respondents’ own terms ‘sanctioned post’ in the transferred activities and therefore also, the plea raised is totally baseless. 39. Coming to the provisions of Rule 8, they have been interpreted many times over and its compliance has been held to be mandatory; the reference in this regard may be made to the orders in Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020, Krishna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.312/2021 decided on 02.08.2021 and State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker : D.B.S.A.W. No.683/2021 decided on 14.01.2022, besides the judgment in the case of Semlata (supra) and Rekha Kumari (supra). 40. 40. In view of the above, it is apparent that the plea raised by the respondents qua the cases wherein the orders have been passed by indicating the petitioners as ‘surplus’, regarding there being no requirement to comply with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 cannot be countenanced. 41. A submission was made that in view of order in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Rekha Kumari (supra), for which on one aspect the submission made is that the judgment is sub-silento, as the Division Bench has approved the transfers, on account of consent granted by the Minister for Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, who has been given independent charge of Medical and Health services under the Panchayati Raj Department, which has been held as sufficient, the same would suffice. 42. However, it would be seen that in the present orders impugned, there is no reference to any consent granted by the concerned Minister. Further, the said consent can only suffice in cases of inter-district transfers in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules of 2011, which requires consent of the Panchayati Raj Department for effecting inter district transfers. 43. Insofar as the transfers within the same Panchayat Samiti and from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same district is concerned, the plea raised is that the said transfers are governed by the provisions of Rules 289 and 290 of the Rules of 1996, which plea, is full of contradictions, inasmuch as on the one hand the respondents do not want to accept the petitioners even as transferred employees, and on the other hand, are seeking to claim that they are governed by the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, which are applicable to the employees of the Panchayati Raj Department only and therefore, such contradictory stand rather mutually destructive stand, cannot be accepted. 44. Besides the above, once the Rules of 2011 for the purpose of dealing with the transferred activities/transferred employees have been framed, which are specific to the employees like the petitioners, the general Rules of 1996 would have no application. 45. 44. Besides the above, once the Rules of 2011 for the purpose of dealing with the transferred activities/transferred employees have been framed, which are specific to the employees like the petitioners, the general Rules of 1996 would have no application. 45. A truly fantastic plea taken by the respondents, that the petitioners have no locus standi to question their transfers, inasmuch as the locus, if any, against the transfer is that of Panchayati Raj Department, has been noticed only to be rejected, inasmuch as if any violation of Rules takes place, which pertains to transfer of the transferred employee, the consequence has to be suffered by the employee concerned and therefore, in case he is aggrieved, he has the locus to question the order passed in violation of the provisions of Rules and/or any other grounds available under the law. 46. In view of above discussion, it is apparent that the petitioners, who are alleged as surplus employees, would continue to be governed as transferred employees and as a consequence, the compliance of the provision of Rule 8 qua such employees, is necessary/sine qua non and the orders passed in violation of the said provisions, cannot be sustained. 47. Further, insofar as cases of petitioners, who are not surplus are concerned, their cases would require compliance of provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011. 48. It may be observed that the object of transferring surplus employees to places where the posts are lying vacant, may be laudable and in fact, in the first instance the employees more than the surplus strength should not have been posted, the compliance of applicable provisions cannot be given a go bye. 49. Consequently, in cases of inter-district transfers, in petitions where the concerned Minister has accorded the consent, in view of judgment in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra), such transfers would be in consonance with the provisions of Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules, however, as in cases, where even such consent is absent, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. 49. Consequently, in cases of inter-district transfers, in petitions where the concerned Minister has accorded the consent, in view of judgment in the case of Rekha Kumari (supra), such transfers would be in consonance with the provisions of Rule 8 (iii) of the Rules, however, as in cases, where even such consent is absent, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. So far as transfers within Panchayat Samiti and from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within same district are concerned, the said transfers can only be effected in terms of Clause (i) and (ii) of the Rule 8 respectively and therefore, in the cases where the orders have been passed by the State Government, even with consent of the concerned Minister, the same are clearly in violation and as such, the same also cannot be sustained. 50. The status of the present writ petitions, at a glance, is as under :- CWP No. Petitioner Date of order impugned Status as per order Transfer Inter/ Intra District Consent of Panchayati Raj Deptt. 50. The status of the present writ petitions, at a glance, is as under :- CWP No. Petitioner Date of order impugned Status as per order Transfer Inter/ Intra District Consent of Panchayati Raj Deptt. 8828/2022 Ravindra Kumar Tailor 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 8849/2022 Ramesh Gurjar 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 8850/2022 Kalu Khatik 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 8855/2022 Ramswaroop Kaswan 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 8863/2022 Sunita Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8864/2022 Arun Kumar Purohit 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8865/2022 Anita Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8866/2022 Ravindra Meena 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 8871/2022 Kaushalya 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8876/2022 Hari Shanker Raigar 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 8887/2022 Phoola Meena 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 8888/2022 Shilpa Meena 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 8902/2022 Kavita Devi 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8904/2022 Sajjana Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8905/2022 Kulvindar Jeet Kaur 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8919/2022 Radha Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8933/2022 Maya Devi 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8941/2022 Satrupa 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 8972/2022 Bhanwar Singh Rathore 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 9027/2022 Mukesh Ola 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 9079/2022 Manju 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 9101/2022 Krishna Jal 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 9114/2022 Saroj Devi 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 9116/2022 Sona 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 9133/2022 Bhanwari Choudhary 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 9368/2022 Ramjas Jat 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 9404/2022 Bhom Singh 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 9452/2022 Manju 15.06.22 & 30.06.22 Surplus Inter No 9733/2022 Tulsa Mahavar 15.06.22 Surplus Intra - 9821/2022 Manju Sheela 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 10474/2022 Raman Lal Ahari 18.07.22 Not surplus Inter Yes 10915/2022 Bhagwati 26.07.22 Not surplus Intra Yes 11176/2022 Roshani Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 10776/2022 Dr. Pradeep Kumar 20.07.22 Not surplus Inter No 11292/2022 Peena Bunkar 01.08.22 Not surplus Inter Yes 11698/2022 Sangeeta Kumari 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 11710/2022 Smt. Sarla 15.06.22 & 20.06.22 Surplus Inter No 11714/2022 Smt.Preetika Prajapat 15.06.22 Surplus Inter No 11813/2022 Dinesh Khatik 10.08.22 Not surplus Inter Yes 11829/2022 Sampat Lal Khatik 10.08.22 Not surplus Inter No 11972/2022 Asha Rajput 10.08.22 Not Surplus Inter Yes 12283/2022 Sonal Ben Patel 01.08.22 Not surplus Inter Yes 12337/2022 Rohit Kumar 01.08.22 Not surplus Inter Yes 12522/2022 Sanwari 16.08.22 Not surplus Intra Yes 12569/2022 Sunita Meena 13.08.22 Not surplus Intra Yes 51. In view of above discussion, as the transfers are inter district and consent of Minister has been indicated, the writ petitions No. 10474/2022, 11813/2022, 11292/2022, 11972/2022, 12283/2022 and 12337/2022 are dismissed. 52. In view of above discussion, as the transfers are inter district and consent of Minister has been indicated, the writ petitions No. 10474/2022, 11813/2022, 11292/2022, 11972/2022, 12283/2022 and 12337/2022 are dismissed. 52. Rest of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed and the respective orders impugned are quashed and set aside; as by way of interim order, it was directed that without prejudice to the challenge in the present writ petitions, the petitioners may join pursuant to order of transfer, the petitioners would be entitled to join back at the place from where they have been transferred. 53. It is made clear that the respondents after compliance of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, as discussed hereinbefore, would be free to pass appropriate orders.