1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8256/2008. (MOHAN LAL BANSAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 06.11.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mrs. Nupur Bhati for the petitioner. By way of filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the petitioner assailed validity, propriety and correctness of the order dated 28.06.2008, whereby his transfer made from Narmada Nahar Pariyojna, Sanchore to Irrigation Sub Division Sri Karanpur under an order dated 28.06.2008 was cancelled. After considering the material available on record, learned Tribunal rejected the appeal by the judgment dated 18.09.2008, hence this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate malice and extraneous consideration in cancelling transfer of the petitioner as that is apparent from the fact that the order of transfer made on 28.06.2008 was cancelled on the same day without any just reason. 2 I have examined the order impugned and also the record available including an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner today. The petitioner was transferred from Irrigation Sub division, Sri Karanpur to Narmada Canal Project, Sanchore under an order dated 20.03.2008. Validity of the same was challenged by way of filing a writ petition before this Court, but the same came to be dismissed inspite of that for quite a long time, he did not choose to join duties at Sanchore. It is further relevant to note that under an order dated 31.10.2005, the petitioner was transferred from Sri Karanpur to Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, but that order stood quashed by the Tribunal by accepting an appeal preferred by the petitioner bearing No.5439/2005. Subsequently the petitioner was suspended on 05.06.2006 and the order of suspension is also subject matter of a petition for writ pending before this Court. In totality, it appears that the petitioner as a matter of fact was posted at Sri Karanpur from a pretty long time and, therefore, his transfer was effected. It is well settled that the transfer is a normal incident of service and that is not required to be interfered unless there is a violation of statute or the transfer is an outcome of malie. No such exigency exists in the present case. The cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner is a pure administrative action. The petitioner 3 remained at Sanchore only for a few days and, therefore, the competent authority may have considered it appropriate to continue the petitioner at Sanchore instead of posting him at Sri Karanpur, where he was already working from last number of years. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/