R. S. VERMA, J. - (1.) THESE three writ petitions raise inter-connected disputes and hence have been heard together by consent of all concerned and are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE controversies raised in the three writ petitions have been narrowed down considerable during the course of arguments and hence I need not give in details the various averments and contentions raised in the pleadings of the parties. I shall, therefore, confine myself to such salient features of the three cases, as are necessary for decision of the controversies raised before me. Bhim Singh is a substantive Nakedar belonging to the cadre of Municipal Board Khudala Falna. Lal Singh is an Assistant Revenue Inspector belonging to the cadre of Municipal Board, Takhatgarh. In Municipal Board Falna, there is only one sanctioned post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. Bhim Singh was promoted to this post provisionally on a temporary basis for a period of one year by the competent appointing authority. An order dated 22. 5. 90 was issued in this regard and copy of this order appears as Annexure 2 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595/90. On 19. 6. 1990 Lal Singh aforesaid was transferred from his parent Municipal Board, Takhatgarh to the post of ARI occupied by Bhim Singh in Municipal Board, Khudala Falna. It is this transfer which has given rise to the various controversies raised in the three writ petitions. At this very juncture, certain other developments which followed in the wake of this transfer; may be noticed. On 30. 6. 90 Bhim Singh was transferred as ARI in Municipal Board, Takhatgarh vide Annexure On 18. 8. 90, this transfer was cancelled by Annexure 5, and Bhim Singh joined back as ARI in his parent Municipal Board, Khudala Falna. This resulted in posting of two ARls in Municipal Board Khudala Falna against sanctioned strength of one ARI. In these circumstances, him Singh filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4595/90 and inter alia prayed that (U respondents be restrained from disturbing his status as ARI in Municipal Board Khudala Falna and (2) respondents be directed to repatriate Lal Singh to his parent Municipal Board Takhatgarh or some other Municipal Board. The case of the petitioner is that he, having been appointed ARI in his parent Municipal Board had a right to continue on this post and since there was only one post of ARI, Lal Singh could not continue on this post and Lal Singh's transfer to Municipal Board Khudala Falna was bad in law. 4. This writ petition was opposed on the grounds inter alia that Bhim Singh's promotion to post of ARI was temporary and ad-hoc and the government was competent to transfer Lal Singh against the post of ARI in Municipal Board Khudala Falna. Certain other pleas were also raised but they were not pressed at the time of arguments and it was contended on the twin grounds that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, Bhim Singh was reverted to the post of Nakedar by an Order dated 28. 11. 90- Bhim Singh filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5040/90 challenging the legality and validity of his reversion order. Prayer regarding repatriation of Lal Singh to his parent board was inter alia reiterated. This writ petition has also been opposed, inter-alia on the grounds pleaded in reply to earlier writ petition and a further stand was taken that Bhim Singh's promotion being bad in law, he was rightly reverted. It transpires that the order of reversion of Bhim Singh to the post of Nakedar was stayed by this Court vide order dated 6. 12. 90 with the result that he continues to occupy the post of ARI in Municipal Board Khudala Falna. The net resultant position is that now two ARIs are functioning against one sanctioned post in Municipal Board Khudala Falna.
(3.) IT may here be stated that during the pendency of the two writ petitions, the composition of Municipal Board Khudala Falna changed and with this changed complexion, Municipal Board Khudala Falna has instituted SB. Civil Writ Petition. No. 2992/92 pleading inte-alia that it cannot bear the financial burden of two posts of AR's and the government cannot insist upon the petitioner board to continue with Lal Singh as ARI. IT has challenged order Annexure 11 dated 16. 5. 92 whereby it has been directed that Lal Singh shall continue to work as ARI in Municipal Board Khudala Falna. This writ petition has been opposed on behalf of all the respondents. In all the cases, necessary counters have been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. First of all, I shall deal with the last writ petition, wherein Municipal Board Khudala Falna has claimed that it cannot be compellesd to bear the burden of two posts of ARIS and the government cannot insist that Lal Singh should continue as ARI in this Municipal Board. First, I take up the first question. Determination of staff of a Municipal Board is governed by Sec. 309 of the Act and primarily it is the Municipal Board itself which has to determine its staffing pattern by passing a resolution in this behalf. However, this is subject to any general or special direction which may be issued by the State government. Sec. 309 of the Act makes this position very clear. The Sec. 309 reads as follows 309. Determination of strength of the staff- (1) Subject to any general or special directions issued by the State Government, a council or a board, as the case may be, may by resolution determine the number of assessors, sanitary inspectors, other inspectors, and subordinate officers, accountants and ministerial establishment and other servants required for the municipality. (2) Subject as aforesaid, a council or a board may direct that one person shall be appointed to discharge the duties of any two or more officers. " Municipal Board Khudala Falna has vaguely pleaded that it is already facing a financial crisis and is not in a position to bear burden of an additional post of ARI. It has also referred to some agitation by the Karmchari Union of the Municipal Board. It has not placed before the Court material to show its financial condition. On the contrary Annexure R 3/1 to R3/3 have been placed on record showing that the board had asked for one post of Revenue Inspector. In my opinion, determination of strength is an internal matter of the board and is subject to general or special direction of the government. Such determination would involve detailed study of the financial resources of the board, comparable staffing pattern of other Municipal Boards, existing financial liabilities of the board and numerous other relevant factors. This Court is ill equipped to undertake this study, particularly when relevant material has not been placed before it. Hence, I would not enter into this question at all. The board is left free to determine its further staffing pattern according to its financial needs by passing proper resolution. It may place the entire material before the State government stating how additional posts of RI or ARI are not required. It may represent its case before the State government in this regard with all relevant facts and figures. It is expected that the State government shall give due weight and respect to the views of the board and only thereafter shall take any decision in this regard by giving proper reasoned order, indicating that it has given due consideration to the views of the board in the matter. That would be the only legitimate and democratic way of dealing with the proposals of an autonomous body like a Municipal Board. Hence, I leave the matter at that. This takes me to the consideration of the question of posting of Lal Singh in Municipal Board Khudala Falna. By inserting section 310a in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment Act) Act, 1991, the State Government has armed itself with power to transfer an employee of one board to another. The new Section 310 A reads as follows: 310a - Transfer from one board to anotherany officer or servant of a board who is a member of subordinate service, ministerial service or class IV service may be transferred by the State Government from the service of one board to the service of another board in accordance with the rules made under section 297. " However, this power has to be exercised subject to provision of rules made under Sec. 297 of the Act. Moreover, posting of Lal Singh in Municipal Board Khudala Falna would presuppose that a vacancy in the post of ARI already exists in that Municipal Board. Reversion of Bhim Singh from post of ARI to Nakedar was stayed by this Court in S. B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 4809/90 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5040/90 by order dated 6. 12. 90. The result is that Lal Singh cannot continue in this board as there is no vacancy in the post of ARI. However, it would be a different matter if the State Government decides to create one more post of ARI after adopting the procedure detailed in para 8 of this judgment. Then of course, it would be lawful for the government to post Lal Singh in Municipal Board Khudala Falna, but not till then. Till an additional post of ARI is created in Municipal Board Khudala Falna, Lal Singh can not be permitted to hold post of ARI in that board and the government must pass suitable orders to repatriate him to his parent board or to transfer him to some other board where vacancy of ARI exists. ;