ARUN BHANSALI,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 10/5/2019 (Annex.16) passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.3 and quashed the orders dated 4/2/2019 (Annex.2) and 15/2/2019 (Annex.3).
(2.) By order dated 4/2/2019 (Annex.1), the petitioner, who was working as Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation, Udaipur was transferred on the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture (Extension), Zila Parishad, Udaipur and the respondent no.3, who was working as Deputy Director, Agriculture, Udaipur was transferred as Project Director, Agriculture Technology Management Agency (ATMA), Jaisalmer. Whereafter, by another order dated 15/2/2019, the respondent no.3, who was under transfer, was transferred as Deputy Director, Agriculture, ATMA, Banswara. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.3 filed appeal before the Tribunal inter alia questioning the validity of the order being in violation of provisions of Rule 8 (iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 ('the Rules, 2011).
(3.) The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the following conclusion while quashing the orders: ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMITTED]... It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the orders of transfer dated 4/2/2019 and 15/2/2019 (Annex.1 and 4). It is submitted that a bare perusal of the orders Annex.1 and Annex.4 would reveal that the same have been passed by the State Government and same have been issued under the orders of Governor and there was no necessity to take concurrence of the Panchayati Raj Department. Submissions were made that the Tribunal has ignored the provisions of Rule 290 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules, 1996'), which empowers the State to transfer any member of the service from one district to another and consequently the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. Submissions were also made that the Division Bench of this Court in Sushila vs. State of Rajasthan : D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 785/2013 decided on 30/1/2014 laid down that the consent of the Panchayati Raj Department was not necessary and, therefore, the determination made by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel appearing on caveat supported the order impugned. ;