CW 8183/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8183/08 Smt. Usha Swami Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 29/08/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, for petitioner *** Petitioner, who is working as Librarian Gr.II, was transferred from Tonk to Bhilwara vide order dt.28th September, 2002. This was challenged by her before this court in CW No.4770/03 and because of its operation being stayed on 18th August, 2003, for all practical purposes she remained at Tonk and the order by which she was transferred dt.28th September, 2002 was never given effect to. Writ petition was disposed of that since order being remained stayed, the petitioner was allowed to continue by passage of time it became ineffective, liberty was granted to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Respondents after due consideration passed order Ann.3 on 7th August, 2008 transferring petitioner at the same place at Bhilwara which has been assailed in the instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that once the order was made ineffective by this court while CW 8183/08 [2] disposing of her earlier petition, she could not have been transferred by present order impugned at the same place of posting which has been impugned by her in earlier petition. Counsel further submits that because of her personal reasons it could not be possible for her to go on transfer. Suffice it to say that by virtue of earlier order passed with regard to her transfer in September, 2002 since remained ineffective because of stay granted by this court virtually for all practical purposes she had worked at Tonk for more than six years despite holding transferable post. It cannot be claimed to continue at one station which is otherwise incident of service. The authority competent in the interest of administration or in exigency of service can always consider to transfer, it is ordinarily not required to be interfered with by this court unless it is in violation of statutory rule or has imputed any malice against the authority who has passed the order impugned. As regards submission made order became ineffective, suffice it to say that the present order impugned is a fresh order passed by the respondents where taking into consideration exigency required to consider appropriate to transfer by present order impugned to Bhilwara. CW 8183/08 [3] This court finds no justification to interfere. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA8183CW2008 29-8.doc