ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 08.11.2022 (Annex.7), whereby the petitioner, a Land Record Inspector, has been transferred from Rajpurapiperan, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar to 19GD, Ghadsana, District Sriganganagar. 2. Though several aspects have been raised in the petition, which are essentially factual in nature and cannot be used for the purpose of invocation jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. During the course of submission, it was submitted that the order dated 08.11.2022 (Annex.7) has been passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the petitioner has been transferred within the same district, which jurisdiction under Rule 173 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Record) Rules, 1957 (’the Rules’) vests with the District Collector. 4. When the said submission was made, learned counsel for the respondent-State pointed out the endorsement-3 to the order impugned to indicate that the order has been passed pursuant to the direction of the State Government dated 07.11.2022. Which order, under the directions of the Court, has been produced as Annexure-R/4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that even in terms of the order dated 07.11.2022 (Annex.-R/4) produced by the respondents, the directions have been issued to the Board of Revenue only and based on the said directions issued to the Board of Revenue, order dated 08.11.2022 has been issued, which cannot confer jurisdiction on the Board of Revenue and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and setaside on this count alone. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State made submissions that under proviso to Rule 173 of the Rules, the State Government has power to issue directions for transfer, even if the same is intra-district, inter-district or inter-division and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 made submissions that the petitioner was transferred to 19GD Ghadsana initially on 01.09.2022, where he did not join and several subsequent orders have been passed, transferring the petitioner by simply indicating him as under transfer to 19 GD Ghadsana and ultimately, posting him at Rajpurapiperan, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar. On an order passed by this Court in a petition filed by the respondent, the Collector after following the directions of the Court, has passed the order posting the respondent at Rajpurapiperan, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, which cannot be faulted. 8. On an order passed by this Court in a petition filed by the respondent, the Collector after following the directions of the Court, has passed the order posting the respondent at Rajpurapiperan, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, which cannot be faulted. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The State Government passed the order dated 07.11.2022 (Annex.-R/4), which was addressed to the Registrar, Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, wherein a list of 41 Land Revenue Inspectors and 61 Patwaries was forwarded requiring the Registrar, to transfer / post the said employees immediately. 10. Pursuant thereto, the order dated 08.11.2022 (Annex.7) has been passed by the Registrar, Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer, inter-alia, transferring / posting the Land Record Inspectors and Patwaries in terms of the order Annex.-R/4. The following endorsement was made to the District Collector :- ^^5- ftyk dyDVj leLr dks Ásf"kr dj fuosnu gS fd mDr dfeZ;ksa dks rRdky ÁHkko ls uohu inLFkkiu ds fy, dk;ZeqDr dj lcaf/kr rglhynkj@dk;kZy;k/;{k }kjk dk;ZeqDr ugha fd;s tkus ij muds fo:) vkids Lrj ls fu;ekuqlkj vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh dj e.My dks voxr djuk lqfuf'pr djkosaA** 11. A perusal of the said endorsement would reveal that the District Collector was directed to relieve the employees in terms of the directions issued. 12. Based on which, the District Collector, with reference to the order dated 08.11.2022, passed the order on 10.11.2022 (Annex.- R/6/6) qua the petitioner as well as respondent No.6. 13. The provisions of Rule 173 of the Rules, inter-alia, reads as under :- ^^fu;e 173- LFkkukUrj.k & dysDVj fdlh Hkw&vfHkys[k fujh{kd dk LFkkukUrj.k ftys ds Hkhrj dgha Hkh dj ldsxk] lEHkkxh; vk;qDr fdlh Hkw&vfHkys[k fujh{kd dk LFkkukUrj.k lEHkkx ds Hkhrj dgha Hkh dj ldsxk vkSj jsosU;w cksMZ fdlh Hkw&vfHkys[k fujh{kd dk LFkkukUrj.k jkT; ds Hkhrj dgha Hkh dj ldsxkA ijUrq jkT; ljdkj fdlh Hkw&vfHkys[k fujh{kd ds LFkkukUrj.k ds fy, dysDVj] lEHkkxh; vk;qDr ;k jsosU;w cksMZ tSlk ekeyk gks funsZ'k ns ldsxhA** 14. A perusal of the above would reveal that for the purpose of intra-district transfer, the jurisdiction lies with the District Collector and for the purpose of inter-division transfer, the same lies with the Divisional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue can transfer anyone within the State. Proviso provides that the State Government can direct the Collector, Divisional Collector or Board of Revenue for the purpose of transfer. 15. Proviso provides that the State Government can direct the Collector, Divisional Collector or Board of Revenue for the purpose of transfer. 15. In the present case, as noticed herein-before, though the transfer of the petitioner was intra-district, the direction was issued to the Board of Revenue on 07.11.2022 and on 08.11.2022, the Board while passing the order of transfer / posting, directed the District Collector to relieve the petitioner / respondent No.6. 16. Though the District Collector in his order dated 10.11.2022 (Annex.-R/6/6) indicated transfer of the petitioner and the respondent No.6, however, it was also indicated that the same was pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2022, whereby the Collector was only directed to relieve them. 17. From the above, it is apparent that the State Government instead of directing the District Collector, has directed the Board of Revenue for transfer of the petitioner, which was intra-district and the Board of Revenue has thereafter simply reproduced the order passed by the State Government requiring the Collector to relieve the concerned and the same has resulted in passing of the order dated 08.11.2022. 18. The direction issued by the State Government to the Board of Revenue and the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 07.11.2022 & 08.11.2022 respectively, both are apparently contrary to the provisions of Rule 173 of the Rules and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 19. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The orders dated 07.11.2022 (Annex.-R/4) and 08.11.2022 (Annex.7) and consequential order dated 10.11.2022 (Annex.-R/6/6) qua the petitioner & respondent No.6, are quashed and set-aside. 20. The respondents would be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law.