S. N. BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the Patwa-ris who have been transferred from one district to another district by order dated 6. 8. 1988. The writ petitions were admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 6. 8. 88 was stayed. Notices were served. The writ petitioners came up for confirmation of stay order on 14. 9. 1988 when time was sought and one month's time was granted to file the reply. The case again came up for confirmation of stay order on 26th Oct. 1988 but the reply had not been filed till then and three week's time was further granted to file the reply. The petitions again came up for orders on 18. 11. 1988. Mr. K. N. Shrimal, Additional Government Advocate prayed for further time to file the reply but we did not think it necessary or proper to grant further time to file reply. THESE cases have again come up today i. e. on 21. 11. 1988 but the reply has not been filed so far. Arguments were heard in part on 18. 11. 1988 and arguments were concluded on 21. 11. 1988 and order was reserved.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2878/ 1988) has very vehemently argued the case and has brought to our notice Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'rules of 1957', which provides that a Patwari shall be appointed to each circle and that appointment of Patwari shall be made by the Collector and that their seniority is to be reckoned distriet wise. Our attention has further been drawn to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 which provides that 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. It has further been specified in sub-clause (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1957 that a transfer of Patwari should not be made unless the officer transferring has satisfied himself that such transfers are necessary in the interest of efficient working or to fill up vacancy created by a long leave, resignation, dismissal suspension or transfer of Patwari. It further provides that unsatisfactory work or conduct of a Patwari should not be a ground for transfer but for penal action. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to Rule 41 which provides that 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 para 9 and these conditions should be strictly observed. Transfer by way of punishment are not contemplated by law. He has further submitted that no sanction or permission was obtained from the Member, Land Records, Board of Revenue before passing the impugned order nor such transfer was necessary in the interest of efficiency of work or to fill up vacancy as envisaged in rule 9. He has also drawn our attention to various circulars No. R. B /l. R /p-3/r-10/82/262-88 dated 10. l. 1985, No. F. 7 (22)Raj/gr. 1/83 dated 9. 2. 84 and No. R. B. /i. R. /k. 3/k-10/82/5664-90 dt. 9. 8. 84 issued by the Board of Revenue in connection with transfer of Patwaris wherein it has been impressed upon the Collectors that transfer of Patwaris should be strictly made in accordance with the Rules, within their district and if they want to transfer in other district, they should seek prior sanction from the Board of Revenue.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Ramgik Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar (1) wherein a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court after discussing several cases, has observed that transfer to accommodate a particular official and an order passed for a collateral purpose in the garb of a legal purpose, amounts to colourable exercise of power and therefore, the transfer order can be quashed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has also placed reliance on P. Pushpakaran Vs. The Chairman, Coiz Board, Cochin (2) wherein a learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court (Justice V. Khalid, as he then was), quashed the transfer order since the same was malafide and was passed merely as a punishment than administrative exigencies. Our attention was also drawn to State of MP. Vs. Shankar Lal (3) wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the power of transfer of employees getting small emoluments should be exercised very sparingly as it is likely to create tremendous problems and difficulties in the way of low paid employees. ;