1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2826/2010 Dudha Ram vs Jodhpur Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Date of Order: 26.3.2010. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. PD Bohra, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 15.2.2010 and according to the petitioner this transfer order has not been passed in administrative exigency nor in public interest. It is also submitted that at the place where the petitioner has been transferred there is already one person of the same cadre is working. It is also submitted that at the place where the petitioner was working before 15.3.2010 there is more work. In the order dated 15.3.2010 it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has been transferred for a period of one month, rather say, assigned the duty so that he may assist the revenue work so as to achieve the target of current year. For such a matter where it is clearly mentioned in the order dated 15.3.2010 that petitioner has been given an assignment of some work to achieve some target for the current year obviously financial year, how the petitioner can raise such a grievance that the order has been passed 2 without there being any administrative exigency or it has not been passed in public interest. Be it as it may be, the petitioner cannot suggest that where how many persons should be given work by the superiors. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-