CWP 12380/09 1 In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ** Civil Writ Petition No.12380/09 Kunj Bihari Lal Sharma Vs. The State & ors. Date of Order ::: 06/10/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. HK Saini, for petitioner The petitioner, who is working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), was transferred vide order dated 31/07/2007 from Municipal Board, Suratgarh to Municipal Board, Hanumangarh in pursuance of which he was relieved vide order dated 07/08/2007 (Anx.1). After almost 2 years, the petitioner was again transferred from Municipal Board, Hanumangarh to Municipal Board, Suratgarh in pursuance to which he joined his duties at Municipal Board, Suratgarh on 04/06/2009. It appears that the respondent No.3, who was posted at Suratgarh at the relevant point of time, taking note of his grievance, the transfer order of petitioner was cancelled and the respondent No. 3 was allowed to continue as Junior Engineer at Municipal Council, Suratgarh and the petitioner was posted at Municipal Council, Hanumangarh vide order dated 11/09/2009 (Anx.3). The main thrust of the submission of counsel for petitioner is that within a span of three months, the petitioner has been transferred to CWP 12380/09 2 Municipal Council, Hanumangarh which cannot be said to be in the interest of administration or in exigencies of service. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it appears that the petitioner for one reason or the other wants to continue at Municipal Council, Sujratgarh and after having been transferred vide order dated 31/07/2007 from Municipal Council, Suratgarh to Municipal Council, Hanumangarh, he got himself posted back to Municipal Council, Sutartgarh where he joined in June, 2009 and as already observed that the grievance of respondent No.3 has been taken note of, his transfer order to Suratgarh was cancelled and he was directed to continue at Hanumangarh vide impugned order dated 11th September, 2009. The transfer being an incident of service, no one can claim to continue at one station. It is also not the case of the petitioner that there is any violation of any statutory rules in passing the order dated 11th September, 2009 (Anx.3). Malafides has also not been alleged by the petitioner against the authorities who have passed the order impugned. The act of the authority being to meet out in the exigencies of service and in the interest of administration, this Court does not find any substance to interfere in the order impugned dated 11/09/2009 CWP 12380/09 3 directing the petitioner to continue at Hanumangarh. Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Raghu/12380cw2009-final.doc CWP 12380/09 4