JUDGMENT 1. - The case is taken for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner was transferred on May 3, 1994 from Balada, Pali to Ajmer on his request. On May 31, 1994, this order was modified and he was transferred to Thanwala (District Nagour) instead of Ajmer. The petitioner joined there on June 14, 1994. After a month i.e. on July 14, 1994 the petitioner's transfer was cancel led and he was posted back to Balada. This order is not a separate order in respect of the petitioner himself but it is in respect of two other Government Servants and in the body of the order it has been stated that the petitioner's transfer to Thanwala (Namur) is cancelled and he shall continue to work at Balada. It is clear from this order that the Authority passing; this order was not even aware of the fact that the earlier transfer order has been fully, executed and the petitioner had joined at the place of his transfer i.e. Thanwala (Nagour), it full month before the passing of this order. This order, therefore is vitiated because of non-application of mind to a very material fact that the earlier transfer order which was cancelled by the impugned order was fully executed a month back. 3. Moreover, apart from only repeated statements about the transfer being for administrative exigency, no reason has been stated as to why it was necessary to cancel the transfer of the petitioner which was made subsequently at his request when ones the Authorities after applying their mind to the difficulties expressed by the Government servant seeking transfer at his own expenses acceded to the request, it is necessary that reasons are stated at least in the record as to why such an order was being cancelled. It is true that for ordering transfer of the employees, it is true that for ordering transfer of the employees, it is not necessary to give reasons or state them in record but in the cases of transfer especially when they are being made on the requests of, the employees, it cannot be said that the Government is immune from recording the reasons. It is only on the basis of such reasons recorded or supplied with the record, one can come to the conclusion whether the action was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or not. 4. In the present case, the respondent's case is that as the request of the petitioner for a transfer was accepted some other employee's similar request was also accepted. The name of that employee and the representation made by him is not before this Court and in such a case also comparative hardship of both these employees asking for the same posting has to be considered: There is no material to conclude that the Authority passing the impugned order applied his mind to all those aspects. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the petitioner has not represented to the Authorities and, therefore, this petition should not he entertained, I do not agree. When frequent transfer orders are passed like this, no useful purpose would have been served by representing the Authorities who have passed the impugned Order without application of mind. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated July 14, 1994 (Annexure 5) so far as it relates to the cancellation of the petitioner's transfer from Balada (Pali) to Thanwala (Nagour) is quashed. There will he no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******