ORDER : MUNNURI LAXMAN, J. 1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 27.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 passed by the second and third respondents, respectively. 2) The facts disclose that prior to the impugned order dated 27.11.2025, the petitioner was working as the Principal Medical Officer at Government Satellite Hospital, Badgaon, Udaipur. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to report for duty in the office of the Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services, Headquarters, Jaipur. Subsequently, by order dated 28.11.2025, the petitioner was relieved from the post of Principal Medical Officer, Government Satellite Hospital, Badgaon, Udaipur. 3) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was directed to report to the office of the Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services, Headquarters, Jaipur, without being issued any specific posting order in the said office. Such an order would amount to an order passed under the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) read with Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1951’). Therefore, such an order can be passed only in circumstances similar to those contemplated under the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) and Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951. The impugned order does not disclose the circumstances under which the petitioner was shifted from one headquarters to another without any specific posting. Accordingly, the said order is untenable in light of the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) read with Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951. 4) It is also his contention that even if such power is vested in the authority, a change of headquarters without a posting amounts to placing the employee under ‘Awaiting Posting Orders,’ and such order cannot be beyond one week when it is made on account of change of charge of the employee’s old post. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of (i) Hemendra Kumar Trivedi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6261/2017, decided on 13.03.2018, (ii) Ganraj Bishnoi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15366/2024, decided on 17.02.2025, (iii) Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10490/2024, decided on 09.09.2024. State of Raj. & Ors. in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6261/2017, decided on 13.03.2018, (ii) Ganraj Bishnoi Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.15366/2024, decided on 17.02.2025, (iii) Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10490/2024, decided on 09.09.2024. 5) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has tried to defend the impugned order by contending that such power is vested in the authority which passed the impugned order. It was contended that a reading of Rule 7(38) and Rule 20 of the Rules of 1951 show that the power to transfer includes the power to change headquarters. On this basis, it was argued that the impugned order, by which the petitioner’s headquarters was changed, amounts to a transfer and not an order of ‘Awaiting Posting Orders.’ It was further contended that such power flows from Rule 13 of the Rules of 1951, which places a government servant at the disposal of the Government and permits his employment in any manner required by the proper authority, without any claim for additional remuneration. 6) It is also his contention that Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951 does not speak of ‘Awaiting Posting Orders.’ It merely governs the entitlement to pay and allowances of a government servant who is compulsorily kept under ‘Awaiting Posting Orders’ under the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) of the Rules of 1951. The decisions of the Government of Rajasthan incorporated under Rule 25A were added by virtue of the Notification dated 14.09.1981. They are clarificatory in nature, and the circumstances enumerated therein are illustrative and not exhaustive. Such posting orders are usually made in the circumstances indicated thereunder. 7) It was further contended that ‘Awaiting Posting Orders’ does not amount to a punishment but is merely an administrative arrangement, and since salary is paid during the said period; thus the petitioner cannot be said to have any grievance. Therefore, it is argued that interference by this Court in such an order is unwarranted. 8) In support of his contention, the learned AAG has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the cases of (i) Mohd. Sultan Ganai Vs. State of J&K and Ors., reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2341, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Kashmir Singh & Anr. , reported in 2010(13) SCC 306 , (iii) S.K. Naushad Rahman & Ors. Sultan Ganai Vs. State of J&K and Ors., reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2341, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Kashmir Singh & Anr. , reported in 2010(13) SCC 306 , (iii) S.K. Naushad Rahman & Ors. Vs. Union of India , reported in 2022(12) SCC 1 , (iv) Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.714/2025, decided on 28.05.2025 and (v) Pushkar Lal Mali Vs. State of Raj. & Ors passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.733/2025, decided on 24.11.2022. 9) I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 10) In the light of the above contentions, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) and Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951, which read hereunder:- “ Rule 7(8)(b). Government may issue orders declaring that in the following circumstance, or in circumstances similar thereto, a Government servant may be treated as on duty (i) ……. (ii) ……. (iii) In the case of persons who, on their first appointment to State Service, do not, before they report themselves at the seat of Government or other specified station, in accordance with the orders of the appointing authority, receive orders to take charge of a specified post, during the interval between the date of such report and the date on which they take charge of their duties. Note:- Period of compulsory waiting by a Government servant returning from leave or after making over charge of his old post for orders of Government posting him to a particular post falls in this clause.” xxx xxx xxx “ Rule 25A. Pay daring awaiting posting orders.- A Government servant who is compulsorily kept under awaiting posting orders under note below Rule 7 (8) (b) (iii) shall be entitled to the pay and allowances at the rate at which he was drawing immediately before relinquishing charge in the old post. He shall not be allowed Conveyance Allowance or permanent Travelling Allowance during the period of awaiting posting order.” 11) It is also apt to refer to Rule 7(38) and Rules 13, 14 and 20 of the Rules of 1951, which read hereunder:- “ Rule. 7. Definitions. He shall not be allowed Conveyance Allowance or permanent Travelling Allowance during the period of awaiting posting order.” 11) It is also apt to refer to Rule 7(38) and Rules 13, 14 and 20 of the Rules of 1951, which read hereunder:- “ Rule. 7. Definitions. (38) Transfer- means the movement of a Government servant from one headquarter station in which he is employed to another such station, either- (a) to take up the duties of a new post, or (b) in consequence of a change of his headquarters.” xxx xxx xxx “ Rule 13. Fundamental conditions of Service - Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority, without claim for additional remuneration, whether the services required of him are such as would be remunerated from the consolidated Fund or from a body incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or from a Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad Fund constituted under the Rajasthan Panchyat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 (Act NO. 37 of 1959).” xxx xxx xxx “ Rule 14. Two persons not to be appointed on one permanent post.- (a) Two or more Government servants cannot be appointed substantively to the same permanent post at the same time. (b) A Government servant cannot be appointed substantively except as a temporary measure, to two or more permanent posts at the same time. (c) A Government servant cannot be appointed substantively to a post on which another Government servant holds a lien.” xxx xxx xxx “ Rule 20. Transfer of Government servant.- (a) Government may transfer a Government servant from one post to another; provided that except- (i) on account of inefficiency or mis-behaviour, or (ii) on his written request, a Government servant shall not be transferred substantively to, or, except in a case covered by Rule 50 appointed to officiate in, a post carrying less pay than the pay of the permanent post on which he holds a lien or could hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under Rule 17. Note:— Except in cases of acceptance of a lower post on abolition of post, in accordance with clause (b) in Rule 215, transfer to a post carrying less pay than the pay of the permanent post on which Government servant holds a lien amounts to imposition of the penalty of reduction in rank and such penalty can be imposed only in accordance, with procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.” 11.1) From a reading of the definition of “transfer,” it is clear that the movement of a government servant from one headquarters station to another may take place either to enable him to take up the duties of a new post or as a consequence of a change in his headquarters. The first contingency in the definition of transfer relates to a specific posting, while the second contingency relates to a change of headquarters. From a reading of Section 20 of the Rules of 1951, it is clear that the Government may transfer a government servant from one post to another post. This indicates that the power to transfer emanates from Rule 20 read with Rule 13 of the Rules of 1951. Undoubtedly, a government servant is at the disposal of the Government, which is the employer. Rule 20 specifically empowers the Government to transfer its employee from one post to another. However, such a transfer cannot be made on the ground of insufficiency or misconduct, or merely at the request of the government servant. Further, a government servant shall not be transferred substantively to a post carrying a lower pay than that of the permanent post on which he holds a lien. 12) A reading of the impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner was directed to move from the post he was holding, namely, Principal Medical Officer at the Government Satellite Hospital, Badgaon, Udaipur, to the office of the Director (Public Health), Medical & Health Services, Headquarters, Jaipur. This order fulfills the conditions of the definition of “transfer.” However, it does not fulfill the conditions of Rule 20, which only enables the Government to transfer a government servant from one post to another post. The petitioner has not been transferred to any specific post in the office of the Director. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has been transferred from one post to another substantive post. The petitioner has not been transferred to any specific post in the office of the Director. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has been transferred from one post to another substantive post. If examined in the context of Rule 20, the order cannot be termed a transfer. However, if examined in the context of the definition under Rules 7(8)(b) and 20 of the Rules of 1951, it does meet the criteria of a transfer. 13) In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Rules 15 and 17 of the Rules of 1951, which read hereunder:- “ Rule 15. Lien- Unless in any case it be otherwise provided in these rules, a Government servant on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post.” xxx xxx xxx “ Rule 17. Suspension of lien. -(a) Government shall suspend the lien, of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is appointed in a substantive capacity - (i) to a tenure post; or (ii) [omitted.] (iii) provisionally to a post on which another Government servant would hold a lien, had his lien not been suspended under this rule. (b) Government may, at their option, suspend the lien of a Government servant on a post which he holds substantively if he is deputed out of India or transferred to foreign service, or, in circumstances not covered by (a) of this rule, is transferred in an officiating capacity, to a post in another cadre, and if in any of these cases there is reason to believe that he will remain absent from the post on which he holds a lien for a period of not less than three years. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or (b) of this rule, a Government servant's lien on tenure post may in no circumstances be suspended. If he is appointed substantively to another permanent post his lien on the tenure post must be terminated, (d) If a Government servant's lien on a post is suspended under clause (a) or (b) of this rule, the post may be filled substantively and the Government servant appointed to hold it substantively shall acquire a lien on it, provided that the arrangement shall be reversed as soon as the suspended lien revives. NOTE : When a post is filled substantively under this clause, the appointment will be termed a provisional appointment, the Government servant concerned will hold a provisional lien on the post; and that lien be liable to suspension under clause (a) or (b) of this rule. (e) Revival of Suspended lien.- A Government servant's lien which has been suspended under clause (a) of this Rule shall revive as soon as he ceases to hold a lien on a post of the nature specified in sub-clauses (i), (ii) or (iii) of that clause. (f) A Government servant's lien which has been suspended under clause (b) of this rule shall revive as soon as he ceases to be on deputation out of India or on foreign service or to hold a post in another cadre, provided that a suspended lien shall not revive because the Government servant takes leave if there is reason to believe that he will, on return from leave, continue to be on deputation out of India or on foreign service or to hold a post in another cadre and the total period of absent on duty will not fall short of three years or that he will hold substantively a post of the nature specified in sub- clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of Clause (a). NOTE When it is known that a Government servant on transfer to a post outside his cadre is due to retire on superannuation pension within three years of his transfer, his lien on the permanent post cannot be suspended.” 13.1) From a reading of Rule 15, it is clear that a government servant, on substantive appointment to any permanent post, acquires a lien on that post unless such lien is suspended in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules of 1951. There exists an exception to Rule 20. This exception is provided under the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) and under Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951. 13.2) From a reading of Rule 7(8)(b), it is clear that certain enumerated circumstances exist on which a government servant may be treated as being on duty. The facts of the present case fall under the note appended to Rule 7(8)(b)(iii), which circumstances are also treated as duty. Two situations are discernible from the said note. The first is a period of compulsory waiting by a government servant on returning from leave. The facts of the present case fall under the note appended to Rule 7(8)(b)(iii), which circumstances are also treated as duty. Two situations are discernible from the said note. The first is a period of compulsory waiting by a government servant on returning from leave. The second is waiting for posting after handing over charge of the post last held. Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951, if read in its entirety, makes it clear that the Rule deals with pay and allowances during the period in which a government servant is compulsorily kept waiting for posting orders, as contemplated under the note below Rule 7(8) (b)(iii). It further clarifies that during the said period, the government servant is not entitled to conveyance allowance or permanent travelling allowance. 14) From the pleadings of both the petitioner and the respondents, it is not clear whether the enumerated circumstances referred to under the heading “Government of Rajasthan’s Decisions” form part of Rule 25A itself or were independently introduced by way of clarification vide Notification dated 14.09.1981. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents in his written notes pleaded that the Government Decisions were introduced by way of Notification dated 14.09.1981. Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951 was also introduced through the same notification, as can be seen from various texts published by different publishers relating to the Rules of 1951. The enumerated circumstances are illustrative of the situations specifically mentioned under the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) of the Rules of 1951. 15) This Court has doubted the question of the competence to make decisions which are of interpretative nature. The notification appears to have been issued by the Finance Department. However, the said notifications are not before this Court, and it is not known under which provisions they were issued. 16) The learned Additional Advocate General sought to defend such decisions by contending that such power lies within the executive authority of the State. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the genesis of the Rules of 1951. These rules were framed by the Rajpramukh of the Government while exercising powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, and they were brought into effect from 23.03.1951. The Rules 5 & 6 are relevant in this regard, which read as under:- “ 5. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the genesis of the Rules of 1951. These rules were framed by the Rajpramukh of the Government while exercising powers under Article 309 of the Constitution, and they were brought into effect from 23.03.1951. The Rules 5 & 6 are relevant in this regard, which read as under:- “ 5. Power to delegate :- Government may delegate, to any of its officers subject to any conditions which it may think fit to impose, any power conferred upon or taken under these rules with the following exceptions :— (a) all powers to make rules, (b) the other powers conferred by Rules 5, 42, 56(a) 81, 148, 151 and 157 (c).” xxx xxx xxx “ 6. Interpretation:- The powers of interpreting these rules is reserved to the Governor.” 16.1) From a reading of the aforesaid Rule 5, it is clear that the government may delegate the powers conferred upon it or taken under these rules to any of its officers, with the exception of powers under Rules 5, 42, 56(a), 81, 148, 151, and 157(c). Rule 6 of the Rules of 1951 empowers the Governor to interpret the rules, and this power is not vested in the executive. The learned Additional Advocate General has been unable to identify under which provisions of law the impugned notification has been issued. Even a reading of Rule 25A indicates that it deals with allowances, which are otherwise governed by Rule 42. Since Rule 42 falls under the exception for delegation, even on a prima facie reading of Rule 42 read with Rule 5, it appears that the notification is not in accordance with the Rules of 1951. However, this Court cannot exercise its power to quash such a rule, as the rule itself is not under challenge and must be treated as valid unless it is struck down as ultra vires the statute. The impugned order must therefore be examined as if they are on the Statute book. 17) The impugned order does not mention the reasons for changing the headquarters without assigning any substantive post. This order clearly amounts to an Awaiting Posting Order in the circumstances of relieving an officer from a post. A careful reading of the relevant note enumerates two circumstances: the waiting period on return from leave, and the change of charge over the old post. This order clearly amounts to an Awaiting Posting Order in the circumstances of relieving an officer from a post. A careful reading of the relevant note enumerates two circumstances: the waiting period on return from leave, and the change of charge over the old post. The change in handing over the charge of the old post must precede the issuance of an Awaiting Posting Order; it cannot follow it. In the present case, the order does not mention the handing over of the charge of the old post; it only indicates that the officer has been shifted from one station to another without being assigned any substantive post. However, the subsequent relieving order reflects a change in the handing over of the charge. This is not in accordance with the requirements of the Rules. The petitioner’s case does not fall under the illustrative conditions provided in the Government of Rajasthan’s Decisions, except for Serial No. 15. Serial No. 4 of the Government Decisions states that whenever an Awaiting Posting Order is issued, following the making over of the charge of the old post, a posting must be provided within one week. 18) This Court, in the case of Hemendra Kumar Trivedi (cited supra), has deprecated the practice of placing a government servant under Awaiting Posting Orders without providing any reasons. Similarly, in Ganraj Bishnoil’s case (cited supra), the Court also disapproved the use of the power of APO as a supplement to a suspension order, which can be exercised only under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. 19) This Court, in the case of Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar (cited supra), has set aside the APO order treating such an order as unsustainable in the light of ban on transfer. 20) The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Apex Court judgments is misconceived, as those judgments dealt with the powers of transfer, which are distinct from posting orders. As held by this Court hereinbefore while interpreting Rule 20, a transfer can only involve the movement from one substantive post to another substantive post. If the transfer entails merely a change of headquarters without a specific transfer posting, although it may satisfy the definition of “transfer,” the power to effect such a transfer is not vested in the government under Rule 20. If the transfer entails merely a change of headquarters without a specific transfer posting, although it may satisfy the definition of “transfer,” the power to effect such a transfer is not vested in the government under Rule 20. Such transfers can only be effected under the provisions of the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) read with Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951. The conditions enumerated under Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) of the Rules of 1951 are required to be strictly complied with. An employee can be kept under APO without a change of headquarters after handing over charge of the old post. He can also be kept under Awaiting Posting Order with a change of headquarters, which would tantamount to fulfilling all the parameters of a Transfer as well as Awaiting Posting Order. Normally, whenever there is a shifting from one headquarters to another in the event of transfer of an employee from one substantive post to another substantive post, he is entitled to disturbance allowance and travelling allowance. The note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) and Rule 25 of the Rules of 1951 do not speak about shifting of headquarters. They only provide for placing an employee under Awaiting Posting Order and the payment of salary during such period. However, Rule 25A specifically disallows conveyance allowance as well as travelling allowance during the period of Awaiting Posting Order. Although such denial, prima facie, appears to be arbitrary whenever shifting of headquarter is involved, in the absence of any challenge to Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951, this Court cannot go into such a dispute. 21) In Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal (cited supra) , it was held that Rule 25A of the Rules of 1951 provides only an illustrative, and not an exhaustive, list of circumstances under which an APO order may be passed. In that context, this Court declined to interfere. 22) A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal (cited supra), while affirming the view of the Single Bench and placing reliance on Pushkar Lal Mali ’s case (cited supra), held that the circumstances enumerated under Rule 25A of the Rajasthan Government’s Decisions are only illustrative and not exhaustive. In the present case, the requirements of the Rule has not been complied with. In the present case, the requirements of the Rule has not been complied with. Although no reasons are ordinarily required to be given, in cases involving the shifting of headquarters, it necessarily implies the handing over of charge of the old post. Such a change of charge of old post is one of the enumerated conditions in the original provision contained under the note below Rule 7(8)(b)(iii) and in the Government’s Decisions forming part of Rule 25A, Serial No. 15. In the present case, the impugned order does not mention the handing over of charge of the old post. However, the relieving order indicates that the charge was handed over subsequently. Another ground is that the Government’s Decision referred to at Serial No. 4 clearly provides that whenever an order for “Awaiting Posting Order” is issued as a consequence of the handing over of charge of old post, a government servant can be kept in that status for only one week; thereafter, he is required to be posted. In the present case, no posting has been made for the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. 23) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 passed by the second and third respondents respectively, are hereby quashed. 24) In the circumstances, no order as to costs. 25) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.