JUDGMENT 1. 1. The case comes up on a application under. Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacating the ad-interim order date 12.9.1991 where by operation of the order date 18.7.1991 Ex. P-2 was stayed 2. As agreed by the teamed counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. the petitioner has challenged the impugned order Anx. p/2 where by the petitioner has been transferred from Rani to Beda on the ground that the impugned order has been issued in pursuance of the order date 10.7.1991 issued by C.M. & H.O. Pali which is wrong for the reason that vide order date 10.7.91 (Anx. P/1), the C.M. & H.O. ordered to relieve one Narayanlal Meena for Beda on that very day. Therefore, the impugned order anx. p/2 may be set aside. 4. On the other hand Mr. Agarwal submits that due to typographical error In the order date 10.7.1991 name of employee was mentioned as Narainlal Meena where as the petitioner's name was to be mentioned. He submits that there is no employee whose name is Narayanlal Meena working in the Department as has been mentioned in the order Anx.p/I and, therefore, the impugned order Anx. P/2 date.18.7.1991 is perfectly correct. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Generally this Court does not Interfere in the transfer matters since an employee cannot claim as of right to remain at a particular place but in this case the transfer order date 18.7.1991 (Anx. p/2) is stayed and the petitions is continuing at the previous place of posting since long therefore the transfer has lost its significance. Under these circumstances without going into the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to quash the Impugned order Anx.P/2 dated 18.7.1991. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as observed above.However, the respondents will be free to transfer the petitioner according to rules and the disposal of this writ petition will not come in their way. The application u/Art 226(3) stands disposed of.Petition disposed accordingly. *******