(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.
(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.