Honble JAIN, J.– The case comes up on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution moved by the respondents No. 1 and 2 for vacating the ad-interim order dt. 8.12.1995 whereby transfer order dt. 22.11.1995 of the petitioner was stayed, stating that due to stay order Government is paying salaries to two persons at Chittorgarh whereas there is only one sanctioned post and further that the public of Karauli is deprived of services of Radiologist. (2). As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. (3). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging transfer order 22.11.1995 (Anx. 5) by which he has been transferred from Chittorgarh to Karauli. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only to accommodate respondent No.3 Mr. R.C. Maheshwari the petitioner has been transferred to Karauli vide order dt 22.11.1995 (Anx. 5) malafidely. He submits that earlier vide order dt. 22.6.1995 the respondent No. 3 was posted at Pratapgarh but he did not join duty at that place. Thereafter he was posted at Chittorgarh as Junior Specialist in Surgery Dept. vide Order dated 9.10.1995 but since there was no vacant post a corrigendum dt. 10.10.1995 was issued accommodating the respondent No.3 as Junior Specialist in the Pathology Dept. though he is having specialised qualification in the Radiology. He further submits that the respondent No.3 was deputed in the Radiology Deptt. vide order dt. 18.11.1995. Therefore, the order dt. 22.11.1995 which has been passed to accommodate Mr. R.C. Maheshwari may kindly be set aside. (5). Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 has filed reply and stated that the petitioner has concealed and suppressed material facts from the court, therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed on this count alone. He also submits that it is open for the Government to utilise the services of a Doctor in the best possible manner and the petitioner cannot raise any grievance against posting of respondent No.3 who was posted at Chittorgarh according to rules. He further submits that the petitioner has already completed two years at Chittorgarh, therefore, he has been rightly transferred in administrative exigencies. He has relied on AIR 1991 SC 532 (1) and AIR 1994 SC 2444 (2). (6). Mr. He further submits that the petitioner has already completed two years at Chittorgarh, therefore, he has been rightly transferred in administrative exigencies. He has relied on AIR 1991 SC 532 (1) and AIR 1994 SC 2444 (2). (6). Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner has misstated the material fact that the respondent No.3 is at Chittorgarh for the last six years whereas he is there since 1991. He submits that the petitioner got stay order by misstating the fact that the respondent No.3 did not join duty whereas he did join the duty. He also submits that he had deliberately not filed order dt. 9.10.1995 but only filed Corrigendum Anx. 2 dt. 10.10.95 showing that the petitioner is transferred against the post of another speciality and not to the post of his speciality. He has denied the allegation of malafide and submits that the order Anx. 5 cannot be said to be bad and, therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and the case law cited at Bar. (8). The sole basis of the petitioners case is that the respondent No. 3 was transferred earlier against the post of another specialisation. The respondent No. 3 is having specialisation in Radiology whereas he was posted earlier in Surgery and later on in Pathology Department which according to Mr. Mathur is illegal. Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner despite time being granted on 22.3.96 that for the purpose of transfer as per the rules incumbent having specialisation in one subject can only be transferred to the post of same specialisation and not otherwise. Therefore in the absence of there being any specific rule to this effect, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cant be accepted particularly when the petitioner who is having specialisation in Radiology has been transferred to the post of that very specialisation vide Anx. 5. The ground of malafide urged by the petitioner is also not tenable in the absence of any material on record. The petitioner cant take any advantage out of the earlier orders. That apart by the order dt. 22.11.1995 neither the salary of the petitioner has been reduced nor his rank has been affected. 5. The ground of malafide urged by the petitioner is also not tenable in the absence of any material on record. The petitioner cant take any advantage out of the earlier orders. That apart by the order dt. 22.11.1995 neither the salary of the petitioner has been reduced nor his rank has been affected. It may be stated that transfer is an incidence of service and one cannot claim to remain at a particular place as it is for the authorities concerned to post an employee in administrative exigencies. Generally the Court does not interfere in such matters unless the transfer order is passed in violation of statutory rules or with malafides. But in the instant case, as stated above the petitioner has not been able to substantive either of these. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. (9). In the result, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismi- ssed. The ad-interim order dt. 8.12.1995 is vacated and the application u/ Art. 226(3) stands disposed of.