ORDER : The present bunch of 100 writ petitions, enlisted in the appended Schedule give rise to same issue, which shall be treated to be part and parcel of the order instant, are decided by a common order, however, the facts of SBCWP No.3299/2022: Anju Bala vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., are illustratively taken into consideration. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders passed by the respondents, whereby the petitioners have been directed to report to the office of Chief Medical and Health officer and subsequent thereto they have been accorded postings at the places different from where they were already working. 3. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioners, were posted at particular PHC/CHC or Sub-Centres, when the order dated 18.02.2022 was passed by the Secretary, inter-alia, indicating that for the purpose of providing good governance and looking to the general public interest, nursing staff working more than the posts sanctioned for the said place and whose salary was being drawn from the place other than where they were working, would report to the Chief Medical and Health Officer and give their option to said CM & HO, who shall post them appropriately. 4. The said order dated 18.02.2022 was endorsed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer to the respective Drawing and Disbursing authorities and the concerned employees and required that surplus women health workers be relieved for the office of CM & HO. 5. On 20.02.2022, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ratangarh, District Churu, also required that where on account of passing of interim orders by the Court more than one person is working on the same post, their list may also be sent. 6. Thereafter, on 21.02.2022, the Block CM & HO required the petitioners to report to the office of CM & HO and thereafter they have been accorded posting by order dated 25.02.2022. 7. 6. Thereafter, on 21.02.2022, the Block CM & HO required the petitioners to report to the office of CM & HO and thereafter they have been accorded posting by order dated 25.02.2022. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioners from the place of their present posting by impugned orders are ex-facie contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (“Rules of 2011”), inasmuch as the requisite consent, as required under the Rules, has not been taken by the respondents before effecting the transfer of the petitioners and therefore, the orders impugned are bad in law. 8. Reliance has been placed on the 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 and Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents made vehement submissions that petitions deserve dismissal, inasmuch as from the perusal of the documents which have been placed on record, it is apparent that the respondents have taken the steps only with a view to provide good governance and in public interest. Submissions have been made that while at various places more than one person are working against the same post, at other places the posts are lying vacant and therefore, for the purpose of rationalizing the availability of the nursing staff at all the PHC/CHC and Sub Centres, the orders have been passed, which cannot be faulted. 10. It was also submitted that in fact the petitioners have not been transferred, they have simply been relocated on account of the fact that they were surplus at given place and therefore, in absence of any order of transfer, the Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 has no application. 11. Submissions have been made that vaccination drive of the State is going to commence and for that, the manpower is required at all the PHC/CHC and Sub Centres and in absence whereof the drive would be affected and on that count, the orders have been passed. 11. Submissions have been made that vaccination drive of the State is going to commence and for that, the manpower is required at all the PHC/CHC and Sub Centres and in absence whereof the drive would be affected and on that count, the orders have been passed. Submissions were also made that the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, essentially is creating hindrances in the working of the Medical and Health Department, wherein though the respondent is the administrative/parent department, for every movement of the employees, the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department and/or order from authority indicated under Rule 8, is required to be taken, which is also not forthcoming; and therefore, on that count the entire working of the Department is getting held up and thus this Court should not interfere in the orders impugned. 12. Further submissions have been made that various orders have been passed in public interest litigation being in Sanyam Lodha vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.2297/2016, Suo Moto vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11294/2017 and Ramniwas Daga & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No.7535/2021, decided on 18.11.2021, wherein directions have been given and for the compliance of the said orders also, the present exercise is necessary. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. It is not disputed that the petitioners are transferred employee. The provisions of Rules of 2011 are very specific, wherein, a transferred employee can be transferred by the authorities indicated in the Rule and for transfer from one district to another, consent of the Panchayati Raj Department is necessary. The relevant Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 reads as infra: “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.” 15. (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.” 15. The Rule in question has been dealt with more than once by this Court, wherein in the case of Samleta (supra), a Coordinate Bench inter alia directed as infra: “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.” 16. When the said judgment was appealed before the Division Bench, the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the submissions made including the fact that aspect of 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. 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. 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.” 17. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kiran Kumari (supra), again after exhaustively dealing with various aspects of provisions of Rule 8 came to a similar conclusion that order without complying with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 cannot be passed by the respondents. The determination reads as infra: “22. Argument of respondents that by virtue of order dated 16.06.2018 passed by the Chief Secretary, the Medical & Health Department has been authorized to transfer the employees of Panchayati Raj Department is untenable. In considered opinion of this Court, any executive order cannot over-take or take place of substantive Rules. 23. In unqualified opinion of this Court, the Rules of 2011 framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution are paramount. Much relied expression in Rule 8 “… … … under the transfer policy and directions issued by the State Government … … …” are only to supplement the Rule. State’s attempt to give a complete go by to the Rules in the garb of such expression is unsustainable. 24. The State Government can frame policy or issue directions only on those aspects, in relation to which, the Rules are silent. Any executive order of the State Government, which is contrary to the express provision of the Rules cannot get sanction of the Court. Such orders will have to concede, on all aspects wherever they come in conflict with the statutory Rules. 25. The order of the State Government dated 16.06.2018, if read carefully reveals that all the stipulations contained in order dated 16.06.2018 are contrary to express provisions contained in Rule 8. Such orders will have to concede, on all aspects wherever they come in conflict with the statutory Rules. 25. The order of the State Government dated 16.06.2018, if read carefully reveals that all the stipulations contained in order dated 16.06.2018 are contrary to express provisions contained in Rule 8. (i) Para (v) requires the consent of parent Department i.e. Medical & Health Department in cases of transfer under Rule 8(i) and 8(ii); the same clearly falls foul to Rule 8 (i) and 8 (ii); (ii) (c) seeks to ratify such transfers affected, that too cannot be done – an act which is void ab-initio cannot be ratified and that too by the authority which has usurped the powers; (iii) and direction given in (l) in relation to inter-district transfers. 26. The order dated 16.06.2018 at best be read or construed to be a prior rather tacit approval of the Panchayati Raj Department. But in the opinion of this Court, even that is impermissible and unsustainable because Rule 8(iii) postulates consent of Panchayati Raj Department; whereas part (l) of the order goes on to say that in case of inter-district transfers, parent Department will not be required to take consent of Panchayati Raj Department. 27. In considered opinion of this Court, stipulation given in part (l) of the order does violence with what is contained in para (iii) of Rule 8 and it is in direct conflict with Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011. 28. The order dated 16.06.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary of the State does not go along with Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 and thus, the same cannot be allowed to endure. Though there is no specific challenge to said order, but since it has been relied upon by the State as a shield to protect the order of transfers, the Government order dated 16.06.2018 is hereby quashed. 29. As a natural corollary, the impugned transfer orders (dated 29.09.2019) issued by the Additional Director (Administration), Medical & Health Department, Rajasthan Jaipur are also quashed; writ petitions are allowed. 30. It is informed that the petitioners involved in the present bunch of writ petitions are protected by way of interim order(s) passed by this Court, the interim order(s) passed in these writ petitions, consequent to petitions being allowed, are made absolute.” 18. 30. It is informed that the petitioners involved in the present bunch of writ petitions are protected by way of interim order(s) passed by this Court, the interim order(s) passed in these writ petitions, consequent to petitions being allowed, are made absolute.” 18. From the determination made in the case of Samleta (supra) by the Single Judge and Division Bench and in the case of Kiran Kumari (supra), it is more than apparent that all the aspects, as sought to be raised by the respondents in the present petitions, have been taken into consideration and the requirement to comply with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 has been held to be mandatory. 19. The submissions made by the counsel for the respondents essentially seeking to highlight the working difficulties on account of requirement to comply with the provisions of Rule 8, cannot be a reason enough, for this Court to either water down the provisions and/or to hold that the requirement of Rule 8 are not mandatory. It is for the State to take a comprehensive view of the provision and/or, its working. 20. So far as submission regarding petitioners being relocated only, being surplus, and therefore, the provision of Rule 8 would have not application, has no substance as the Division Bench in the case of Samleta (supra) has specifically come to the conclusion that even in the cases of transfer of surplus employees, consent has to be obtained from the Panchayati Raj Department. 21. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Mool Shanker : D.B.S.A.W. No.683/2021 decided on 14.01.2022 has, while holding that a particular observation made in the case of Samleta by the Division Bench regarding prohibition of ex-post facto sanction by the Panchayati Raj Department as sub silentio, observed as infra: “…. 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. 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.” 22. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the respondents pointing out the opinion of the Division Bench in the case of Mool Shanker (supra) regarding ex-post facto sanction, however, apparently even the ex-post facto sanction is also not forthcoming. 23. In view of overall fact situation, wherein the law laid down by this Court in Samleta (supra) and Kiran Kumari (supra) already govern the field and no other view apparently is possible going by the provisions of the Rules. The State irrespective of a large number of judgments have been passed in this regard, continues to deal with the situation by itself passing the orders/not seeking the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department, which also cannot be countenanced. 24. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The orders impugned passed transferring the petitioners in violation of provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011 are quashed and set aside. 25. In cases, where the petitioners have joined pursuant to orders of transfer, they would be permitted to join back at the place from where they have been transferred and where the petitioners have reported at the office of CM & HO, having been relieved from the place where they were working, they would also be permitted to join back at the place from where they were relieved for joining to the office of CM & HO.