1 D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.248/2010 Smt.Saroj Bala V/s The State of Raj. & ors. 31.3.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.N.Bhandari Mr.Tanveer Ahmad for the appellant. By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 25.2.2010 whereby the writ petition challenging the order rejecting the representation of the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. It is a case where the petitioner had preferred a writ petition. It was decided on 10.11.2009 with directions to make a representation to the competent authority with regard to the grievances raised in the writ petition. The petitioner made a representation, which was rejected. Thus, a second writ petition was preferred by the petitioner. It was urged that the petitioner was relieved pursuant to the order of transfer originally passed and once she is relieved, the relieving order could not have been cancelled. The learned Single Judge taken up the issue and came to the conclusion that as per Note-2 appended to the order dated 22.10.2009, the petitioner was not liable to be relieved. However, the authority concerned committed illegality while relieving the petitioner. The aforesaid illegality was rectified before filing of the representation and the petitioner has been restored back to the place from where she was relieved. It is also noted that there is no violation of the statutory 2 provisions or allegations of malafides so as to challenge the non-implementation of transfer order. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment of this Court in Gangaram Bishnoi V/s State and ors. (WLR 1994 Raj. 537) wherein it was held that once the transfer order is executed, it could not be cancelled though competent authority can pass a fresh order. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Perusal of the order of transfer shows that as per Note-2 appended to it, the petitioner was not liable to be relieved as the transfer order was not effective on the petitioner. She was however relieved by the authority in violation of the order of transfer. Immediately realizing the mistake, the relieving order was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to remain on the place from where she was relieved as the order of transfer was not effective on the appellant-petitioner. In the representation, the aforesaid aspect was carefully considered by the competent authority. It is in those circumstances the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there exists neither violation of rules nor exists allegations of malafide so as to call for interference in the matter. We do not find any error or illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. So far as the judgment in the case of Gangaram Bishnoi (supra) referred to by the learned counsel 3 for the appellant is concerned, it is to be made clear that when the authority has competence to pass order of transfer, it has competence to cancel or recall the same also. In view of the aforesaid, we cannot endorse the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case. Accordingly, the appeal so preferred by the appellant is dismissed in limine. (M.N.Bhandari)J. (Jagdish Bhalla)C.J. Parmar