JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a Junior Engineer working in the Public Works Department. He has raised a grievance that he was transferred by an order dated .3.8.1994 (Annx. 1 from Kolayat to Lunkaransar. By order dated 31st December, 1994 he was again transferred from Lunkaransar to Kolayat. These transfers, according to the petitioner, where in the year 1994 but the order Annx. 2 was given effect to in the year 1995. Further case of the petitioner is that on 14.2.1996 by order Annx. 4 dated 14.2.1996 the petitioner was transferred from Kolayat to Bikaner. Having remained at Bikaner, after this order Annx. 4, by order Annx. 5 dated 11.12.1996 the petitioner has been ordered to be posted at R.S.R.T.C., Jaipur on deputation. By these transfers, which are alleged to be made in a period of two years, petitioner wants to urge that he has been subjected to frequent transfers and these transfers are, therefore, arbitrary and cannot be treated to be one made bona fidely. 2. From the pleadings of the petitioner no specific charges or allegations of mala fide have been levelled against any particular officer. The assertion in the petition is that the orders passed in quick succession cannot but be treated one not made bona fidely. By such pleadings a case of mala fide has been sought to be established. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Om Prakash v. State of Raj, 1990 (1) WLN 594 : (1990 Lab IC 597) and Ashok Dhariwal v. University of Jodhpur, (1992) 2 Raj LW 130. The petitioners in those cases were transferred frequently, about 6-7 times, that too within a year or so. Here, the first alleged transfer is of 1994 and the last one is of 1996. The four transfer orders are spread in a time span of about three years and in case of the first two transfers, it was perhaps an internal arrangement from Kolayat to Lunkaransar and Lunkaransar to Kolayat back. Therefore, that cannot be considered displacing the petitioner so as to give those transfer orders a colour of mala fide. In the first three transfers, petitioner remained in or around Bikaner, within an hour's drive. Such an order when actuated by administrative exigencies, cannot be treated creation of mala fide. Therefore, that cannot be considered displacing the petitioner so as to give those transfer orders a colour of mala fide. In the first three transfers, petitioner remained in or around Bikaner, within an hour's drive. Such an order when actuated by administrative exigencies, cannot be treated creation of mala fide. No violation of the rules concerned has been alleged, therefore, no interference is called for in the orders so made. There is no force in this writ petition and same is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******