Honble JAIN, J. – Case comes up on application u/Art. 226(3). As agreed the matter is heard finally. (2). The petitioner who is alleged to be a Junior Specialist (Medicine) was transferred vide order dt. 19.3.1995 (Ex. 2) against the post of Senior Medical Officer, Residency Dispensary, Jodhpur. It is alleged that on 23.3.1996 vide Ex. 3 he joined his duties in compliance of the order dt. 19.3.1996 but vide order dt. 25.3.1996 (Ex. 4) the respondent no. 2 kept the order dt. 19.3.1996 (Ex. 2) in abeyance. The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 25.3.1996 (Ex. 4) on the ground that once he reported to the C.M & H.O., Jodhpur as per order dt. 19.3.1996 vide Ex. 3 dt. 23.3.96 and thereafter joined at Residency Dispensary as per order of the C.M. & H.O. Jodh pur, the order dt. 19.3.1996 (Ex. 2) transferring him from Phalodi to Jodhpur cannot be kept in abeyance and further the impugned order is bad as employee cannot be transferred within three years. (3). This Court while issuing the notice on 3.4.1996 stayed operation of the order dt. 25.3.1996 (Ex.4) for three weeks. (4). In pursuance of the show cause notice, the respondent no. 5 has filed reply stating that the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 alongwith as many as about 108 other Doctors were promoted on the post of Junior Specialists (Medicine) vide order dt. 29.2.1996 and the petitioner was posted at Phalodi but he did not join duty there and secured the order of posting on promotion at Government Residency Dispensary, Jodhpur. It has also been stated that the respondent No. 5 was wrongly shown in that order that he was working in the Police Training School, Jodhpur whereas he was working at Residency Dispensary, Jodhpur. It has been further stated that when the State Government came to know that at the Residency Dispensary, the respondent no. 5 is already working the order was rightly kept in abeyance. Reliance has been placed on decisions reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 (1), AIR 1993 SC 2444 (2) & 1993 (1) SCC 148 (3). (5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the reply filed by the respondent no. 5 as well as the affidavit filed by the State Govt. so also the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. (6). (5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the reply filed by the respondent no. 5 as well as the affidavit filed by the State Govt. so also the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. (6). Generally this Court is slow in interfering with the transfer matters unless the impugned order is passed with malafides or there is any infringement of rules. The petitioner has not taken any of these grounds. The main ground which has been taken by the petitioner is that he has already joined on 23.3.1996 in compliance of the order dt. 19.3.1996, therefore, the impugned order dt. 25.3.96 is bad. In my opinion, the ground taken by the petitioner is not sustainable in view of the facts there is a serious dispute between the parties regarding the factum of joining by the petitioner. In support of their respective stand, the parties have filed affidavits and counter affidavits. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. Though the petitioner has filed Ex. 3 dt. 23.3.1996 to show that he had joined before the C.M. & H.O., Jodhpur but in the absence of handing over & taking over of the charge by the respective officials as per the rules, therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the petitioner has joined the duty in pursuance of order dt. 19.3.1996 (Ex. 2). The petitioner has alleged that he has assumed the charge but mere assumption is of no avail when a procedure under the rules has been provided for handing-over & taking-over of charge particularly when the respondent no. 5 is still working and was never relieved from Residency Dispensary, Jodhpur where the petitioner has been transferred. That apart the State Gover- nment is competent to keep any transfer order in abeyance. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the extraordinary jurisdiction and no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner. The ad- interim order dt. 3.4.1996 stands vacated. (7). Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismi- ssed. The application under Article 226(3) stands disposed of.