JUDGMENT 1. - Heard them. 2. The petitioner is holding the post of UDC in substantive capacity and it was working in Government Secondary School, Vigyan Nagar, Kota. It is alleged that by order of the Deputy Director Education (M), Kota Exhibit-1, dated July 20, 1989, the petitioner was transferred from Kota School to Senior Secondary School Awan. In his place one Kailash Chand Jain was transferred from Awan to Kota School. It is mentioned by the petitioner that while he was, under orders of transfer, he was soon thereafter transferred from Awan to Kalmanda, District Tonk. The petitioner made representation Exhibit-3 to the Deputy Director Education and requested him to cancel his transfer to Awan as well a to Kalmanda (District Tonk). According to the petitioner his minor son is suffering from Psedo Muscular Dystrophy disease and he needs regular treatment which is available at Kota and not at Awan. On this ground he had made request to respondent No. 1 and his transfer from Awan to Kota was cancelled on 31st July, 1989. According to the petitioner, his transfer from Kota to other places is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. 3. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents and they were served to the Government Advocate. However, no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. In the first place, it may be mentioned that within the four corners of the writ petition, the petitioner has not at all disclosed as to how long he was posted as UDC in Government Secondary School, Vigyan Nagar, Kota. In the absence of that disclosure chart which was very relevant, it cannot be said that the petitioner was transferred from Kota to Awan within a short span of time. So far as the ground of illness alleged by the petitioner with respect to his son is concerned, it may be stated that no medical documentary evidence has been produced to convince this Court that the petitioner's son is suffering from a serious ailment. The Court is completely in dark with respect to the period from which the son of the petitioner is suffering from the alleged illness and with regard to the treatment undertaken by him. The facts, on the contrary, suggest that the petitioner wants to stick at Kota. The Court is completely in dark with respect to the period from which the son of the petitioner is suffering from the alleged illness and with regard to the treatment undertaken by him. The facts, on the contrary, suggest that the petitioner wants to stick at Kota. Immediately after his transfer made on 20, July 1989 to Awan, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 and got his transfer cancelled. That cancellation order has also not been produced. From that order, the Court could find out as to in what circumstances and in what manner this cancellation was obtained. Then came Exhibit 2 whereby the petitioner was transferred to Kalmanda, District Tonk on 26th August, 1989. The representation Exhibit 3 made by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 goes to show that there were some complaints against the petitioner and Vigilance Committee had decided unanimously to transfer the petitioner from Kota. If there were complaints against the petitioner and the Vigilance Committee of the District examined the matter and decided regarding the transfer of the petitioner from Kota to some other place, it is clearly an administrative order and it was passed after due and proper application of mind. The transfer of the petitioner ordered by Exhibit-2 is neither arbitrary nor mechanical and nor on account of any extraneous cons ideation. It was made on account of administrative exigencies and such transfer orders cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. This writ petition has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed. The petitioner will hand over the charge at Kota and will comply with the order Exhibit-2, issued by the Deputy Director, Education (Male), Kota at once.Petition dismissed. *******