1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4651/2009. : : Raj Behari Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 13.7.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Sourabh Purohit for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Bansal for the respondent No.3. Mr. S. D. Khaspuria, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of his transfer dated 25.2.2009 and the order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 13.4.2009 by which appeal filed by him was dismissed. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was posted from Forest Devision, Bundi to Forest Devision, Tonk on 15.2.2008 and merely on the basis of request made by respondent No.3, vide order dated 25.2.2009, he has been transferred from Tonk to Forest Devision, Mohangarh. It is submitted that according to 2 Government circular dated 26.3.1990, the transfer of an Officer of the rank of Ranger ought not to have been made before the expiry of two years. Learned counsel submitted that Mohangarh is a place situated in Jaisalmer, which would be highly inconvenient to him. The transfer order has been made with a view to accommodating the respondent No.3, who was hitherto serving at Mohangarh. Learned Tribunal has erred in law in not appreciating the appeal of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has opposed the writ petition and submitted that respondent No.3 was serving at Mohangarh for last ten years and that his transfer for the first time has been made to Tonk and that he has joined at Tonk on 2.3.2009. It is submitted that there is no interim order passed by Tribunal during the pendency of appeal. 5. Learned Additional Government Counsel also opposed the writ petition and submitted that a Government servant has no right to insist to continue at a particular place. It is submitted that Government even if on consideration of representation by respondent No.3 accommodated him at Tonk, this cannot be a reason to challenge his transfer. 3 Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. : AIR 1991 SC, 532. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that interim order of stay was passed by this Court on 6.5.2009 by which operation of transfer order dated 25.2.2009 qua the petitioner was stayed. Resultant situation is that now the petitioner also continues at Tonk where he was last posted on 15.2.2008. The Government circular dated 25.3.1990 on which learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, cannot be taken as basis to annul the order of transfer or otherwise hold such order as incompetent. Mere fact that respondent No.3 has been posted vice the petitioner, this cannot be accepted sufficient basis for the finding of malafide. Even otherwise, no official/authority has been named as the one, who allegedly granted undue favour to respondent No.3. No Government servant can be posted at his place of choice. It is settled law that this Court only can make interference if it is shown that such order was passed for reasons of proven malafide or violation of statutory rules. 4 I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.23.