VYAS, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the impugned order of transfer dtd. 15. 7. 2005 (Annex. 4) may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer under the control of Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. , Jodhpur. Vide order dtd. 11. 11. 2003, the petitioner was transferred from Bikaner to Jodhpur. Thereafter vide order dtd. 2. 7. 2004, the petitioner was transferred from Jodhpur to Jaitaran. The petitioner also averred in the writ petition that after a stay of four months at Jaitaran, vide order dtd. 29. 9. 2004 (Annex. 3) the petitioner was transferred from Jaitaran to Pokaran. The petitioner accordingly joined the duties at Pokaran. Thereafter vide order dtd. 14. 7. 2005 (Annex. 4), the petitioner was transferred from Pokaran to Sumerpur. This order was passed just a day before imposition of ban. Thereafter vide order dated 15. 7. 2005, the order dtd. 14. 7. 2005 was modified and the petitioner was transferred from Sumerpur to Falna. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer and he has been transferred vide order dtd. 15. 7. 2005 during the currency of the ban on transfer. It has also been submitted that transfer of the petitioner is not in administrative exigency nor the same is in public interest. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent No. 1 and it has been submitted that this petitioner has been transferred in administrative exigency. It has also been submitted that at the place of petitioner Sh. P. R. Vishnoi has been transferred to Pokran and he has joined the duties at Pokran. Therefore, also the transfer order should not interfered by this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined and scanned the material available on record.
(3.) IT is axiomatic that if a transfer order has been made in violation of a statutory rule or regulation, it will be illegal. This is also the obvious implication of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a transfer order is liable to be struck down if made in violation of the rules. The transfer is preogative of the authorities concerned and court should not normally interfere therewith, except when transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala-fides, or is in violation of any statutory provision, or has been passed by an authority not competent to pass such as order. The Government employee cannot claim his posting at a particular place. That apart the respondents are not required to disclose administrative exigency in the order of transfer itself. ;