Order : 1. Vide 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India, the Panchayati Raj Institution was significantly empowered by bringing 29 vital departments, as listed in the 11th Schedule, under its jurisdiction. In furtherance of the said constitutional mandate, the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan took an administrative decision to transfer certain activities, including financial resources and personnel, from the earlier respective departments to the Panchayati Raj Department. For smooth devolution of power, the State of Rajasthan also enacted the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011, envisaging legal framework governing the transfer of State Government employees. Notably, Rule 8 of these rules explicitly stipulates the mode and manner of the transfer of employees. 2. In all the petitions, as per Appendix A, B and C of the instant order, common assertion is that not only the transfers of petitioners are in mechanical exercise of mind but also in blatant non-compliance of applicable Rules. Facts of individual cases are thus not being gone into, as what is under challenge herein simplicitor is the procedure, legality and the administrative propriety of the transfers/postings of the petitioners. Vide this common order, all the Appendix [(A) to (C)], ibid are being disposed of as similar issues are involved therein. 3. First and foremost, reference may be had to Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (for short 2011 Rules), in particular Rule 8 thereof, which reads as under:- “ 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 Administration Establishment Committee of the Zila Parisad 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.” Non compliance of sub rule (ii) and/or (iii), ibid is complained by the petitioners. 4. Some of the petitioners also allege violation of Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules). The said rule, for ready reference, is also reproduced hereinbelow:- " 31. 4. Some of the petitioners also allege violation of Rule 31 of the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules). The said rule, for ready reference, is also reproduced hereinbelow:- " 31. Appointment to the service.- Appointment to post(s) in the Service by direct recruitment or by promotion, as the case may be, shall be made by the Appointing Authority on occurrence of substantive vacancies from the candidates selected under rule 25 in order of merit and by promotion from the persons selected under rule 29 of these rules. The persons so appointed shall be transferable from one place to the other within the Scheduled Areas irrespective of the place of appointment taking the entire Scheduled Area as a Unit i.e. the entire Scheduled Area shall be the closed cadre. When a person so appointed cannot be transferred out side this closed cadre in any capacity which also includes deputation & reverse deputation." 5. Effectively thus, the bunch of petitions herein can be segregated into three categories, i.e.:- (A) Those, where the petitioners (Appendix-A) are aggrieved by alleged violation of Rule 8 (ii) of the Rules of 2011, ibid contending that the District Establishment Committee of the ZilaSamiti has not passed the order while transferring them from one Panchayat Samiti to another within the same District. (B) Where (Appendix-B) petitioners are aggrieved with alleged violation of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011, ibid, stating that consent of Panachayati Raj department has not been taken. (C) Where, apart from alleged violation of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2011, transfers have been carried out either from TSP Area to Non-TSP Area or vice versa averring non compliance of Rule 31 of the Rules of 2014. (Appendix-C). 6. First category of petitioners pertain to Rule 8(ii). A perusal of the transfer orders clearly reveals that the same have been passed by an authority, who lacks the administrative competence. Rule 8(ii) of the Rules of 2011, in no uncertain terms, states that in case of transfer of an employee from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti within the same district, the authority competent to pass such an order is District Establishment Committee of Zilla Prishad. There is no quibble about the proposition that sub rule (ii) is mandatory in nature. There is no quibble about the proposition that sub rule (ii) is mandatory in nature. None has argued that interpretation of Sub Rule (ii) is to be such that it is directory and nor, in any case, that is the position in law, as is borne out from the bare reading of the Rule, ibid. 7. As an upshot, the impugned transfer orders in the bunch of petitions in Appendix (A) have since concededly not been passed by respective District Establishment Committees, the same are set aside. Liberty is however given to the respondents to pass fresh orders by complying with the statutory mandate, if administrative exigency so warrants. 8. Adverting now to the second category of the petitioners as per Appendix-B i.e. the ones who are alleging violation of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011, i.e., no consent from the Panchayati Raj Department has been obtained. Argument in unison, by all the learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that consent so envisaged has to be prior and in writing. Lack thereof, vitiates the transfer orders and, therefore, same ought to be set aside. 9. In fact, at the very out set, it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid controversy is no more res integra. Suffice it would be reproduce relevant extract of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Of Rajasthan Versus Rekha Kumari : D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 284/2022, decided on 17.08.2022:- "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 expost 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. 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." (emphasis supplied) Significantly, what has thus been held is that once the consent of Panhayati Raj department is there, be it pre or post ex facto, the requirement of compliance of Rule 8(iii) stands satisfied. 10. Similar opinion has recently been further enunciated by in the case of State Of Rajasthan Vs. Aakashdeep Poonia :D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 799/2024, decided on 20.09.2024, wherein speaking for the Division Bench, my learned brother Shree Chandrashekhar, J. observed/held as under:- "4. In our opinion, the apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General is unfounded. This has never been in the realm of any doubt that a decision by the Court governs the parties to the litigation except in very exceptional kind of cases where the Court itself directed extending benefits to similarly situated persons. In our opinion, the observations made by the learned Single Judge regarding post facto approval dated 16th March 2024 accorded by the Department of Agriculture and Panchayati Raj shall not affect transfer of the other persons in the transfer order dated 22nd February 2024. In our opinion, the observations made by the learned Single Judge regarding post facto approval dated 16th March 2024 accorded by the Department of Agriculture and Panchayati Raj shall not affect transfer of the other persons in the transfer order dated 22nd February 2024. This is too well known that transfer of any employee is a policy decision which sometimes is taken in the administrative exigencies. The Court shall have no power to interfere with the order of transfer unless it is demonstrated before the Court that the transfer order was without jurisdiction or contrary to the extant Rules. Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate General has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.284 of 2022 titled as “State of Rajasthan v. Rekha Kumari” with analogous matters. We accord our concurrence to the judgment in “Rekha Kumari” which also indicates that post facto approval granted by the Department would suffice and save the transfer order even if the same was issued without taking prior approval as mandated under clause (iii) of Rule 8 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Tansferred Activities) Rules, 2011." 11. In the light of above, I am unable to persuade myself with the arguments being canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. Moreover, learned counsels appearing for the respondents have brought the official administrative note-sheet in the Court. A perusal of the same clearly reveals that the transfer file was moved at different levels inter-se department of Medical & Health and Panchayati Raj Department and both the administrative Secretaries, i.e. Medical & Health Department and Panchayati Raj Department, concur on the proposal of the transfers including the Hon’ble Minister who is holding charge of both the departments. 12. No doubt, the approval of the Secretary of Panchayati Raj Department is ex-post facto but the same per-se does not vitiate the requirement of seeking consent in terms of Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011. The compliance envisaged in Rule 8(iii) of the Rules of 2011 does not necessarily have to be prior to passing of the orders. Many a time, the administrative exigencies are such that based on verbal deliberation, administrative orders are passed, subject of course to the post-facto written approval. 13. As long as the compliance has been carried out, be it pre or ex-post facto, no interference is warranted. Many a time, the administrative exigencies are such that based on verbal deliberation, administrative orders are passed, subject of course to the post-facto written approval. 13. As long as the compliance has been carried out, be it pre or ex-post facto, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the bunch of petitions contained in Appendix (B) are dismissed. However, if, in certain individual cases in this set of petitions, ex-post facto approval has not been obtained, the respondents shall do the needful within a period of 30 days of passing of the instant order. 14. Let us now deal with the cases where transfers have been carried out either from TSP Area to Non-TSP Area or vice versa, in the teeth of Rule 31 ibid. My attention has been drawn to foot- note (7) of the impugned order, which is self speaking. It, in no uncertain terms, envisages that those of the transferred officials who can provide proof of their belonging to the scheduled area (but have been sent to outside the said scheduled area) will not be transferred upon furnishing of the same. However, the time period qua the needful exercise has been left open ended. 15. Accordingly, since the respondents themselves concede in the impugned transfer orders itself, that those who have been sent out of the assigned scheduled area, their transfer orders will be revisited, I am of the view that no adjudication is warranted qua alleged violation of Rule 31. However, the respondents are directed that upon the petitioners approaching them within 7 days with the proof of their belonging to a particular scheduled area, in case it is so found that they have indeed been transferred outside their scheduled area, they shall then pass fresh remedial orders within a period of 30 days thereafter. 16. All the writ petitions mentioned in Appendix (C) are accordingly disposed of. Till the passing of the fresh orders, as above, the interim orders operating in favour of the petitioners, shall continue to enure to their benefit. 17. In the parting, I may also hasten to add that the approval does not have to be necessarily conveyed to the concerned transferee official. Till the passing of the fresh orders, as above, the interim orders operating in favour of the petitioners, shall continue to enure to their benefit. 17. In the parting, I may also hasten to add that the approval does not have to be necessarily conveyed to the concerned transferee official. The entire intent of approval being that the Panchayati Raj Department is not kept in dark and, there is a certain transparency, which is envisaged under the constitutional scheme which led to enactment of Panchayati Raj Act read with Rules framed therein. 18. Conversely, in case the Panchayati Raj Department does not approve of the transfer, in that event, the concerned employee is entitled to have the said information and it shall then be conveyed in writing, both to the department where the services of such official(s) has/have been deputed as well as to the concerned official(s) so as to enable him/them to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 19. There is another aspect of the matter, i.e. many transferred employees have voiced deep distress over the severe hardships imposed upon them by mass transfer orders with no application of mind, what so ever. The haste in which it has been done is absolutely without consideration of their genuine difficulties or even affording them a chance to present them. These abrupt decisions have upended their lives in complete disregard of the struggle they would to face. To that extent, I am of the view that certain indulgence is warranted so as to not leave them remediless altogether. 20. Illustratively, in SBCWP Nos.3804/2024 and 3588/2024, the petitioners have been transferred 700 kms. Away and given the meager salaries, which they are earning, they can ill-afford to relocate themselves within the financial constraints. On the other hand, to maintain two dwelling units, is also completely impractical apart from resulting in hardship to the entire family. 21. Likewise, in SBCWP No.2118/2025, petitioner as well as his spouse, are both the Government employees. In SBCWP No.1661/2025, the petitioner is slated to retire in July, 2026 and seeks quashing of his transfer on the additional ground of violation of Division Bench judgment rendered in Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Reported in 2001(1) RLR 398 . In SBCWP No.1661/2025, the petitioner is slated to retire in July, 2026 and seeks quashing of his transfer on the additional ground of violation of Division Bench judgment rendered in Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Reported in 2001(1) RLR 398 . In SBCWP No.1976/2025, mother of the petitioner is suffering from Cancer as well as she herself is undergoing matrimonial discord with her husband, which has resulted into registration of criminal case by her against her husband at the current place of hearing posting and her transfer would thus result in an extreme hardship in travel and health to attend the court hearing apart from resulting disruption of medical treatment to her mother. 22. In SBCWP No.6209/2024 and 6214/2024, the transfer was directed for a limited period of 100 days to meet administrative exigency, which, in any case, owing to the interim orders passed by this Court, is long over and thus, the competent authority may have to re-visit the decision. 23. In SBCWP No.2359/2025, it seems to be again a case where the slated date of retirement is 31.05.2026, yet it has gone unnoticed by the competent authority while passing the transfer order, apart from the petitioner herself being cancer patient. Similar is a case at SBCWP No.2976/2025 where once again it is stated that the petitioner is a cancer patient. 24. The circumstances highlighted above serve as a glaring example of the reckless haste with which transfer orders are being passed, reducing the process to a mere mechanical exercise devoid of any consideration for the affected employees. Such an arbitrary approach cannot be countenanced, to say the least. The competent authority must ensure that transferred employees are given a fair chance to present their case, especially when extenuating circumstances exist—be it terminal illness, widowhood, divorce, extreme relocation hardships, imminent superannuation, or maternity-related pre or post-natal challenges. In these deserving cases, anything short of a humane and compassionate approach would be a grave injustice. Thus, in the deserving cases humanitarian outlook must be adopted. 25. In these deserving cases, anything short of a humane and compassionate approach would be a grave injustice. Thus, in the deserving cases humanitarian outlook must be adopted. 25. Reverting to the present bunch, only the writ petitions, which have been specifically mentioned in the foregoing part of this paragraph, the competent authority shall not implement the transfer orders qua those petitioners for a period of 30 days and make an endeavor to ascertain the work exigencies as an alternative place of posting and either in the same district or in the vicinity thereof so as to enable them to commute on daily basis. 26. At this stage, learned counsels appearing for the respondents, submit that passing of the fresh orders requires prior sanction from the competent authority in view of the ban imposed by the Chief Secretary vide an administrative order dated 03.01.2024. In view thereof, in order to obviate any procedural hurdle, it is made clear that since the transfer orders have been put on hold by mandamus of this Court, thus taking fresh administrative decision qua the petitioners shall be construed to be in continuation of the earlier transfer orders. No prior sanction would thus be required in terms of the circular dated 03.01.2024 issued by the Chief Secretary. 27. The entire bunch of petitions is disposed of as above. 28. All pending application (s), shall also stand disposed of.