{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPL. APPEAL (WRIT) NO.748/2010 SMT. PUSHPA TRIVEDI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date of Judgment : 13.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. Rajesh Panwar, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P.No. 10916 of 2010 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High court Rules against an order dt. 26.11.2010 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and in consequence upheld his transfer order. So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition and in consequence justified in upholding his transfer order. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal and in turn uphold the impugned order passed by Single Judge. In our view, the learned Single Judge was right in his reasoning and conclusion. { 2 } 4. The appellant is working as “Teacher Gr. III” in the respondent Department. By an order dated 30.08.2010, the appellant was transferred from Government Upper Primary School, Kachhola to Government Upper Primary School, Salawatia. He is not satisfied with his order of transfer to a new place and hence filed a writ petition, out of which this intra-court appeal arises challenging the aforementioned transfer order. It is this writ petition, which was dismissed by writ court (Single Bench) by passing impugned order giving rise to filing of this intra-court appeal. 5. In the first place, transfer of an employee being an incidence of service condition, it cannot be challenged by an employee unless it is passed by way of punishment or is actuated by personal malafides or is violative of any transfer policy. Such is not the case here. Secondly, it was challenged by writ petitioner only on the ground of malafides. So far as malafides are concerned, no case is made out on facts. Neither any facts are alleged to constitute the plea of malafides nor any evidence is filed in its support. It was rightly not accepted to be so by learned Single Judge and we concur with the same and lastly in the absence of any arbitrariness noticed, the order of transfer was beyond judicial scrutiny under Article 226/227 of Constitution. 8. If the appellant is asked to go from “A” place to “B” place on account of administrative exigencies by his employer, then such order cannot be questioned on judicial side. When questioned, the same has to be upheld. 9. So far as the filing of representation to the authorities by the appellant requesting them to withdraw the transfer order is concern, it being the right of the appellant to request his master (employer) to reconsider his case of transfer, the { 3 } same can always be resorted to by him and for that no permission is necessary from the Court. Needless to observe, the employer is also then apply their mind to the causes shown by the appellant in the representation and depending upon the several administrative factors, the orders of transfer can always be modified / annulled, if considered proper. This Court would like to observe, that as and when any representations is made by an employee, the same must be dealt with by the concerned authorities on priority basis in its proper perspective to avoid hardship likely to be suffered by an employee due to his uprooting from one place to other. 10. In view of foregoing discussion and subject to aforesaid liberty, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( C.M. TOTLA),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/