ORDER Farjand Ali, J. 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with the following prayers:- 1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugend transfer Order dated 22.02.2024 (Annex.2) passed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and 2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Civil Service Tribunal, Jodhpur may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of ‘Patwari’ vide order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the District Collector, Chittorgarh. His first place of posting was Kapasan and after completion of probation period, his service were regularized by the respondent-Department. Vide order dated 22.08.2022 (Annex.2) he was transferred from Pandoli, Tehsil Kapasan to Kankarwa, Tehsil Bhopalsagar whereafter vide order dated 20.09.2022 (Annex.3), he was again transferred from Kankarwa, Tehsil Bhopalsagar to Bansen, Tehsil Bhadesar. Vide order dated 22.02.2024, the respondent-Board Of Revenue, Ajmer again transferred him from Bansen, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh to District Bhilwara. Interestingly, no place of posting is mentioned in the transfer order dated 22.02.2024 (Annex.4). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an Appeal No.94/2024 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur, which came to be dismissed on 06.03.2024. Hence the instant writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.03.2021 in the matter of Rajpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein it has been held as under:- 19. Before adverting to rival contentions, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of Rule 9 and Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957, which read as under:- "9. Transfers. -(i) The Collector may transfer a Patwari from one circle or tehsil to another in his own district: but no transfer of a Patwari from one district to another shall be made without the sanction of the Member, Land Records, Board of Revenue. Transfers from one Division to Another will be sanctioned by the Board of Revenue. The Sub-Divisional Officers are also empowered to transfer a Patwari from one circle to another in the same tehsil or to another tehsil in their sub-division on sufficient grounds. Transfers from one Division to Another will be sanctioned by the Board of Revenue. The Sub-Divisional Officers are also empowered to transfer a Patwari from one circle to another in the same tehsil or to another tehsil in their sub-division on sufficient grounds. Provided that if a Patwari is transferred out of the district on his own request he shall rank junior to existing Patwar is of that district. (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. (ib) The Divisional Commissioner may transfer a Patwari anywhere within the Division and the Board of Revenue may transfer a Patwari anywhere within the State: Provided that the State Government may direct the Divisional Commissioner for the transfer of a Patwari anywhere within the Division or the Board of Revenue for the transfer of a Patwari anywhere within the State. (ii) Transfers of patwaris should not be made unless the officer has satisfied himself that such transfer is necessary in the interest of efficiency of work or to fill up vacancy created by long leave, resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of a Patwari. The Patwari going on transfer shall have to complete all his record and clear all his work in arrear before handling over charge to his successor. The Tehsildar may, with the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer, get the incomplete record completed by employing extra staff and paying such staff by deducting the required amount from the salary of the negligent Patwari. The unsatisfactory work or conduct of a Patwari should not be a ground for his transfer but for penal action. 412. Administrative matters pertaining to Patwaris. - The Collectors are solely responsible for the appointment, transfer and discipline of Patwaris. Transfer of Patwaris are ordinarily undesirable and should on no account be made to suit the convenience of individuals. They can only be made under the conditions given in paragraph 9 and these conditions should be strictly observed. In order to avoid unnecessary transfers, Patwaris picked out for transfer, should, so far as possible be exchanged with one another rather than with other Patwaris. Transfers by way of punishment are not contemplated by law. Moreover, a transfer is hardly a substitute for punishment.” 20. In order to avoid unnecessary transfers, Patwaris picked out for transfer, should, so far as possible be exchanged with one another rather than with other Patwaris. Transfers by way of punishment are not contemplated by law. Moreover, a transfer is hardly a substitute for punishment.” 20. A careful reading of Rule 9 and 412 of the Rules of 1957 and its comparison with other corresponding provisions of transfer in other service rules, reveals that there is a sea difference in the provisions relating to transfer of Patwaris. Transfer in case of Patwaris is considered as an exception and thus, it cannot be taken as an incidence of service. 21. True it is, that a hierarchy has been provided to transfer a Patwari in Rule 9, but irrespective of the pedastral at which the authority transferring a Patwari, is placed, he has to ensure that it falls within the exceptions enumerated under clause (ii) of Rule 9. Clause (ii) rather begins with a negative mandate; it enjoins upon the competent authority to be satisfied about existence of either of the two contingencies -(i) transfer is necessitated in the interest of efficiency of work or (ii) to fill up vacancy. 22. Expression “in the interest of efficiency of work” is having its own tone and shade – it cannot be equated with an administrative exigency, simplicitor. That apart, last sentence of Rule 412 forecloses option of the officer to transfer a Patwari even in the event of his unsatisfactory work or conduct -“the unsatisfactory work or conduct of a Patwari should not be a ground for his transfer but for penal action”. That apart, Rule 412 provides to an extent that in case of transfers, the transfer must be mutual-with one another rather than with other Patwaris. 23. Similar opinion, though more beautifully and more authoritatively has been expressed by this Court in case of Inder Singh (supra). Following paragraphs of the judgment of the Inder Singh(supra) require special mention, hence, they are being echoed:- “22. On touching merits of the cases, from perusal of the pleadings and the record of the respondents, I found whole sum violation of Rule 9 and 412 of the Rules of 1957. Following paragraphs of the judgment of the Inder Singh(supra) require special mention, hence, they are being echoed:- “22. On touching merits of the cases, from perusal of the pleadings and the record of the respondents, I found whole sum violation of Rule 9 and 412 of the Rules of 1957. The government servant other than the Patwaris in State of Rajasthan may be subjected to transfer looking to administrative exigency as per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1959, however, in the cases of Patwaris special provisions are prescribed for effecting their transfers under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957. 23. According to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 a Patwari from one Tehsil to another Tehsil in the same district can be transferred by the Collector on being satisfied that such transfer is necessary in interest of efficiency of work or to fill up the vacancies created by long leave, resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of a Patwari. Subrule (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 further provides that the Patwari on going transfer before getting relieved shall have to complete all his record and clear all his work in arrear. The arrears of work may further be completed by employing extra staff in the event of transfer of a Patwari. The requirements of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 to transfer a Patwari are further asserted and reiterated by Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957 to the extent that a transfer of Patwari is ordinarily undesirable and should not be made to suit convenience of individuals. The provisions of Rule 9 read with Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957 make it clear that the transfer of a Patwari is not a normal incidence of service but is an exception. The legislature chose to prescribe statutory guidelines for transfers of Patwaris looking to their special status in land revenue and land record operations. 24. A Patwari is a basic administrative unit in administrative hierarchy of government that is dealing with the land revenue, land records and settlement of land. A Patwari is required to discharge quite important statutory duties as prescribed under Chapter-III of the Rules of 1957. A Patwari is a living link between the government and the landholders. 24. A Patwari is a basic administrative unit in administrative hierarchy of government that is dealing with the land revenue, land records and settlement of land. A Patwari is required to discharge quite important statutory duties as prescribed under Chapter-III of the Rules of 1957. A Patwari is a living link between the government and the landholders. The State of Rajasthan, as other parts of the country, is also dominated by farmers and the largest part of the population is involved in profession of agriculture. A Patwari is required to keep living relations with the agriculturists and also required to keep absolute vigilance with revenue records to protect rights of the State and also to maintain harmony and peace among land holders and to avoid unwanted land disputes in his patwar circle. Looking to important statutory duties of a Patwari the law framers provide a special procedure for effecting their transfers. The administrative officers must follow the statutory requirements prescribed to transfer a Patwari. The compliance of the provisions of Rule 9 read with Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957, while transferring a Patwari is mandatory.” 24. This being the position, even if the State or the competent authority wishes to transfer a Patwari from one place to another, he has to satisfy himself about the interest of efficiency of work or to fill the vacant post. 25. In the opinion of this Court, going by the spirit of Rule 9, particularly clause (ii) thereof, observations made by this Court in Inder Singh’ case (supra), transfer of Patwaris cannot be resorted to, as a matter of course. 26. In the present case, neither such satisfaction has been recorded, nor the State has brought on record such satisfaction arrived at by competent authority, before making extensive, rather indiscriminate exercise of moving Patwaris. 27. In considered opinion of this Court, the fact that the petitioner has been shunted from Patwar Mandal Akadali, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer to District Hanumangarh, without indicating Patwar Circle or even Tehsil is enough to show lack of application of mind. It cannot be inferred that the competent authority was aware of the present vacant position in District Hanumangarh and that too the requirement of petitioner’s efficiency in such Patwar Circle, for which his transfer was warranted. 28. It cannot be inferred that the competent authority was aware of the present vacant position in District Hanumangarh and that too the requirement of petitioner’s efficiency in such Patwar Circle, for which his transfer was warranted. 28. If the competent authority has not decided or was not aware, where the concerned Patwari is to be transferred, it cannot be presumed that the competent authority has applied its mind towards the vacant position, falling vacant on account of exigencies mentioned in clause (ii) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957. Nor can he be presumed to have ascertained that interest of efficiency of work required that petitioner should be transferred to a far flung place at Hanumangarh. 29. Adverting to Division Bench judgment in the case of Gopalram (supra), suffice it to observe that the facts of the said case were entirely different. The basic ground for which the petitioner had challenged his transfer was that it is the State Government alone, which can transfer a Patwari and the District Collector cannot by himself transfer a Patwari unless directed by the State Government so to do. That apart the facts as noticed in the judgment and finding recorded therein, particularly in para No.12 shows that the concerned petitioner’s transfer was on account of administrative exigency, interalia, to fill up the vacant post. Contra-distinction to the decided judgment, the facts and questions involved in the present case are entirely different. In the present case neither the order impugned nor does material placed on record is sufficient to satisfy that petitioner’s transfer was effectuated in a bid to fill up vacant post. 30. It will not be out of place to reproduce para No.12 and 13 of the Division Bench judgment dated 28.01.2020 in the case of Gopalram (supra), relied upon by learned Government Counsel:- “12. Coming to the contention of the appellant that the transfer order issued by the District Collector is violative of provisions of Rule 9 (ii) and Rule 412, a conjoint reading of Rule 9 and Rule 412 indicates that a Patwari should not be ordinarily transferred, but then, he can always be transferred when considered necessary in the interest of efficiency of work or to fill up vacancy created by long leave, resignation, dismissal, suspension or transfer of the Patwari. Suffice it to say that besides for administrative exigency, a Patwari can be transferred even to fill up the vacant post created on account of various contingencies enumerated. Thus, on account of administrative exigency, inter-alia to fill up the vacant posts, if number of employees holding the post of Patwaris are transferred within the District, in no manner, it can be said that the order impugned passed by the District Collector without recording the satisfaction regarding necessity in the interest of efficiency of work, is violative of provisions of Rule 9 (ii) and Rule 412 of the Rules of 1957. As a matter of fact, the order impugned by itself reflects that the transfers have been effected for administrative exigency to fill up the vacant posts. 13. Admittedly, the transfer of a Patwari from one place to another within the Sub-Division, District, Division or State is regulated by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 which nowhere restricts the transfer of a Patwari prior to completion of a particular period of posting at a particular place. The circular/instructions issued by the State Government providing for transfer of Patwari after completion of the tenure of two years, are in the nature of guidelines not enforceable and cannot be construed in the manner suggested so as to put absolute restriction on the power to be exercised by the authorities enumerated under Rule 9 to transfer a Patwari for administrative exigency or other contingencies specified. In other words, notwithstanding the instructions issued by the State Government as aforesaid, the authority empowered can transfer a Patwari at any time for administrative exigency in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules. It is a different matter that even otherwise in absence of administrative exigency, an employee holding the transferable post cannot be frequently transferred by his employer at his whims and fancy, but on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in no manner, it can be inferred that the appellant has been transferred without there being any administrative exigency and it is not even the case of the appellant that he has been subjected to frequent transfer.” 31. As an upshot of discussion foregoing, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has been subjected to transfer, contrary to the mandate of Rule 9(ii) of 1957. Impugned order thus, deserves to be quashed. 32. The same is hereby done. As an upshot of discussion foregoing, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has been subjected to transfer, contrary to the mandate of Rule 9(ii) of 1957. Impugned order thus, deserves to be quashed. 32. The same is hereby done. The impugned transfer order dated 31.12.2020 qua the petitioner, is, hereby, quashed. 33. The writ petition stands allowed as above. 34. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly. Following the dicta; to maintain judicial discipline and consistency and feeling that the case of the petitioner is squarely covers with the case of Rajpal Singh (Supra), the instant Writ Petition also deserves to be allowed. 3. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer qua the petitioner as well as the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Bench Jodhpur passed in Appeal No.94/2024 are hereby quashed and set aside. The order dated 22.02.2024 (Annex.4) qua the petitioner whose name is mentioned at S.No.34 is set aside and the rest part of the said order shall remain unaffected by this order. The respondents authorities are at liberty to pass a fresh order, if a question of public interest or administrative exigency may arise. 4. The stay petition also stands disposed of.