JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that order dated September 5.1989 (Annexure-5) be quashed by which the order dated September 2.1989 (Annexure-2) transferring petitioner from Singhana Khera to Kalsada has been cancelled. 2. It is contended by Shri B. M. Sharma learned counsel that the petitioner was working at Singhana Khera since last 2 years. Vide order dated Sept. 2. 1989 (Annexure-2) he was transferred from Singbana Khera to Kalsada and he joined immediately on September 4.1989 at Kalsada vide Annexure-4. It is submitted that however vide order September 5 1989 (Annex-5) the order Annexure-2 was cancelled and he has been re-posted at Singhana Khera. It is contended by the learned counsel that this order has been passed on pressure of respondent No. 4 who is an Ex-Sarpanch of the area. It is also submitted that there was no administrative exigency and the transfer was made on recommendation of Panchayat- Samiti Bayana through its Vikas Adhikari respondent No. 3. It is also pointed out that as per the guidelines of the Government of Rajasthan issued in July 1989 as far as possible no transfer should be made within a period of two years. Reliance has been placed on Asu Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1984 RLR 143) in which it was observed that mala fides may be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case and if the transfer is not in routine there must be material to suggest that administrative exigencies were there or the transfer was made in the interest of Institution. If this is not proved then absence of good faith may be presumed The transfer orders passed on recommendation of political leaders should not be approved. 3. The contention of Shri K. N. Gupta learned counsel for respondent Nos. I to 3 is that petitioner has been always pressurising the authorities through various sources to be posted either at Kalsada which is his native place or around it since he has joined service. In para 8 of the return a table showing the places of postings of the petitioner since 1961 has been shown which reveals that he has been always posted at the distance of 3 Kms. t 55 Kms. from his native village Kalsada. It is also pointed out that from 1980 to 1985 he was posted for 5 years at Kalsada. t 55 Kms. from his native village Kalsada. It is also pointed out that from 1980 to 1985 he was posted for 5 years at Kalsada. Presently he is posted at Singhana Khera which is at distance of 33 Kms. It is pointed out that the transfer of the petitioner is not cancelled on account of any pressure and it is contended that Ex-Sarpanch could have no pressure to this extent, but in compliance with ti e order dated September 4,1989 of the Chief Executive Officer. Zila Parished as it was not in the interest of the Panchayat Samiti or in the interest o education of children to post the petitioner at Kalsada. It is further contended that no mala fides have been even alleged against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and that while respondent No. 4 was actually holding the Office of Sarpanch petitioner was posted at Kalsada and therefore there is no question of his now exercising any influence on the authorities concerned to not to post the petitioner at Kalsada. It is also submitted that during the earlier posting of the petitioner at Kalsada there were complaints against the petitioner as he was involved in undesirable politics. Therefore Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti wrote a letter dated September 2 1989 (Annexure-R/1) to post him else-where. 4. I have heard both the parties and also gone through the documents on the record. 5. From the facts and circumstances discussed above it is evident that it was the petitioner himself who has been trying and pressurising the authorities to post him either at Kalsada or places near about his native village. No malafides have even b.en alleged against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and I am not convinced that respondent No. 4 is in any position to exercise such pressure as to get the transfer of petitioner cancelled. Moreover there was no circumstances to show that he has any ill will against the petitioner. In Gopal Narain Singh Vs. Raj. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. ( 1988 (I) RLR 478 )4 it was held by this Court that when no case of mala fides is made out there should be no judicial interference in the transfer order. In Dr. G.D. Harsh Vs. Rajasthan State Seeds Certification Agency & Ors. In Gopal Narain Singh Vs. Raj. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. ( 1988 (I) RLR 478 )4 it was held by this Court that when no case of mala fides is made out there should be no judicial interference in the transfer order. In Dr. G.D. Harsh Vs. Rajasthan State Seeds Certification Agency & Ors. (1989 1) RLR 775) it was observed that when the allegations of the pressure or interference are based on rumour and no material is placed on record regarding the same it would be hazardous to place reliance on such rumours. It was further held that transfer orders are administrative in nature and are not vitiated if passed at the instance of direction of higher authorities or quasi judicial orders. 6. I do not find any mala fides or exercise of undue influence of any person in the impugned order dated September 5 1989 (Annexure-5). 7. The petition is therefore dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******