{ 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.660/2010 RAMESH KUMAR VS. SHRI ANOOP SINGH RATHORE & ORS. Date of Judgment : 24.11.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mrs. Suman Agarwal, 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. 9665 of 2010 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High court Rules against an order dt. 22.10.2010 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 “Jamadar” in Municipal Council, Takhatgarh (respondent). By an order dated 06.10.2010, the Executive Officer, Municipality, Takhatgarh has asked the appellant to report for duty in office of Dy. Director, Local Self Government, Jaipur pursuant to telephonic instructions. 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 aforequoted 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 it being in the nature of frequent one as also 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. In such case frequency is of no consequence nor any case is made out on that issue. 9. Before we conclude, we grant liberty to the appellant to join at his transferred place within two week from the date of { 3 } this order. If he does it, then no action be taken against him failing which the respondent would be free to proceed in accordance with law against the appellant for not ensuring compliance of the orders passed. 9. In view of foregoing discussion, we find absolutely no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( C.M. TOTLA),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/