JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the allegations made in the writ petition alongwith annexures filed in support of allegations made in the writ petition. 2. The order impugned in the present writ petition is a transfer order passed by the Appointing Authority on 27.5.94 (Annexure P.1) transferring the petitioner from the post of Jeep Driver Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar to Zila Parishad, Barmer. A perusal of Annexure P/1 leads towards an irresistible conclusion that the impugned transfer order has been passed in administrative exigencies. No allegations have been made in the present writ petition as to what statutory provisions have been transgressed in passing the impugned transfer order. As a matter of fact in para No. 6 of the writ petition it is alleged that there is no provision under the Act and the Rules which authorise the respondent No. 1 to transfer the petitioner from one Panchayat Samiti to another Zila Parishad, therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction. 3. In my humble opinion the transfer is incidence of service and the Appointing Authority has inherent power to transfer a person from one place to another place looking to the administrative exigencies. It is true that for transferring an employee from one place to another some departmental instructions, office memorandum or guidelines may be formulated by the department. If in the department there is no such guideline, the respondents are hereby directed to frame the guidelines and norms of transfer. 4. It is well to remember that even guidelines issued by the Government or department are violated at the time of passing transfer order which appears to court to have been passed in public interest then such orders of transfer should not be interfered. As a matter of fact who should be transferred where it is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provision, the court cannot interfere with it. It is true that while ordering the transfer from one place to another the authority must keep in mind the guidelines, norms or office memorandum regarding transfer. 5. It is true that while ordering the transfer from one place to another the authority must keep in mind the guidelines, norms or office memorandum regarding transfer. 5. It is held that if an employee is not satisfied with his transfer then instead of rushing to this Court he should make a representation to the authority showing or demonstrating the justification not to transfer him from one place to another and when such representation is made the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. 6. As held earlier an order of transfer is an incident of Government service. This Court express its disapproval of the transferees employees rushing to this Court against their transfer from one place to another instead of approaching the appropriate authority by filing a representation. It is entirely for the employer to decide when and where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with such order of transfer. 7. My aforesaid view is buttressed by two recent decisions rendered by apex Court in the case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, reported in 1995(4) SCT 455 (SC) : AIR 1993 SC 2444 and in another case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jogendra Singh, reported in 1991(2) SCT 294 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 1993 SC 2486 . 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case the provisions of sub-section 9-A of Section 86 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 are attracted under which the State Government cannot transfer the petitioner from one Panchayat Samiti of one particular Zila Parishad to another Panchayat Samiti belonging to another Zila Parishad. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 has been abrogated and substituted by Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1994. According to him in place of sub-section 9-A of Section 86 the legislature has deliberately introduced sub-section 8A of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1994 where the State Government has been empowered with such power with retrospective effect. 10. According to him in place of sub-section 9-A of Section 86 the legislature has deliberately introduced sub-section 8A of Section 89 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1994 where the State Government has been empowered with such power with retrospective effect. 10. Looking into the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is hereby directed to move a representation before the State Government within a period of ten days from today, if so advised and if such representation is made to the State Government then the State Government is hereby directed to decide the representation by speaking order within six weeks thereafter. The State Government will communicate the reasoned order passed on the representation to the petitioner expeditiously. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted before me that his client made an effort to join at Zila Parishad, Barmer but he was not allowed to join uptill date, therefore, according to learned counsel that even if the petitioner joins in the month of October, 1994 at Zila Parishad, Barmer the payment of salary of the past months will not be paid by the department. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that if the petitioner joins at Zila Parishad Barmer, the respondents may be directed to pay his past salary in view of the latest amendment introduced by the State Legislature in Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1994 which is made applicable with retrospective effect. In view of the aforesaid submissions made at the Bar, I direct the department to pay the arrears of salary and also continue to pay month by month the salary of the petitioner if he joins at Zila Parishad, Barmer as Jeep Driver.In view of the aforementioned discussion the instant writ petition is finally disposed of on writ.Order accordingly. *******