JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition as been filed challenging the impugned transfer Order dated 24/29th Sept. 1998 (Annexure 3 to A Q/FQ/R9 14/9 8/PYB/S G P the extent it relates to the petitioner and, also, for quashing of the letters dated 9-10-1998 and 14-10-1998, contained in Annexures 5 and 6, respectively to the writ petition, by which contesting respondent No. 4 has been shown to have been taken the charge in pursuance of the impugned transfer order. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was posted as the Assistant Engineer (Irrigation) at the Sub-Division I, Jodhpur, in place of the respondent No. 4 Shri D.K. Joshi. A transfer order was passed on 13-7-1998 (Annexure-1) in respect of large number of Assistant Engineers including the petitioner and respondent No. 4. In pursuance of the said transfer order, the petitioner took the charge of the said post and replaced the respondent No. 4, and the respondent No. 4 was posted to another Sub-Division of Irrigation Department in Jodhpur itself on a vacant post. Subsequently, an order dated 24-9-1998 (Annexure-3) was passed transferring some persons, by which the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were transferred vice versa. Petitioner has raised the grievance against the impugned transfer order dated 24-9- 1998. However, the complicacy arose that in the meanwhile the elections were declared in the State of Rajasthan and the Chief Electoral Officer of Rajasthan issued the order dated 5-10- 1998, contained in Annexure 2 to the petition, putting a complete ban on transfers and it further provided that if an employee had already been transferred, but could not be relieved before 26-9-1998, he would not be relieved and be permitted to continue on the said post. 3. In the instant case, there are claims and counter-claims regarding relieving of the petitioner and taking the charge by the respondent No. 4. Various documents have been filed by the petitioner to prove that respondent No. 4 had neither been relieved from his original posting nor he had taken the charge by the said cut off date. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 has produced certain letters to show that he had taken the charge in pursuance of the transfer order dated 24-9-1994. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 has produced certain letters to show that he had taken the charge in pursuance of the transfer order dated 24-9-1994. This Court, vide interim order dated 26-10-1998, granted status quo ante to be maintained in pursuance of the order dated 5- 10-1998 passed by the Chief Electoral Officer. As the petitioner is on election duty, it is not desirable that the interagnum arrangement made by this Court vide order dated 26-10-1998 be disturbed. 4. Transfer is a condition of service and it.is up to the employer to decide where he wants the services of its employees and up to what time. The employee cannot have a choice of his posting. The employer has to decide the place and duration of posting as per the requirement of administrative exigency. The scope of judicial review by the Courts in the cases of transfers is limited only if a Government employee satisfies the Court by adducing sufficient evidence that his transfer has been made on the ground of mala fide or it has been passed in flagrant violation of the statutory Rules, say an employee holding the non-transferable post is transferred or if the power of transfer is abused and transfer has not been made in public interest but for collateral purposes and with oblique motives. In such a case, the transfer order stands vitiated for the reason that passing such order amounts to abuse of power. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to go into the effect of the order of the Chief Electoral Officer for the reason it has a temporary effect and will come to an end automatically after the election process is being completed nor it is desirable to determine whether respondent No. 4 had joined in pursuance of the impugned transfer order. 5. The only question survives in this writ petition is as what was the administrative exigency, on which the petitioner had been re-transferred within a period of less than 1/2months and that too reversing the postings of the petitioner qua the respondent No. 4. It is worth mentioning that none of the parties can claim to have suffered from any kind of loss as both were posted in Jodhpur. It is worth mentioning that none of the parties can claim to have suffered from any kind of loss as both were posted in Jodhpur. Even today, both of them are posted in Jodhpur, the residence, if any, allotted to them, might not have changed, their families are not displaced, education of their children is not affected. But even if none of them is adversely affected, I fail to understand what was the administrative exigency which compelled the Competent Authority to reverse the position within such a short span of time. The circumstances make it clear that either earlier the competent authority had not passed the order in administrative exigency, or now the recent transfer has been made without considering the requirement of administrative exigency. 6. The State has power to transfer any employee, cancel his transfer order and retransfer him but the power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Transfer at such a short interval should not be made unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. The powers conferred upon the statutory Authority are not absolute. The discretion has to be exercised in view of the facts and circumstances existing in a particular case. The State or its officers have no right to treat its employees like a shuttle cock. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed the reply explaining the fact situation whether the respondent No. 4 had joined the duties in pursuance of the impugned transfer order or not. However, it has also been mentioned that the transfer order had been passed on account of administrative exigency and it is neither illegal nor mala fide nor it has been passed in colourable exercise of power and, thus, it is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. As none of the Authorities has been impleaded by name, the question of mala fide or colourable exercise of power cannot be examined. 7. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have not given any idea as what was the administrative exigency which had forced them to reverse the position which they themselves had created only seventy days ago. No doubt, the impugned transfer does not adversely affect either of the parties, but once the transfer order had been passed, it ought not to have been disturbed without any requirement of administrative exigency. 8. No doubt, the impugned transfer does not adversely affect either of the parties, but once the transfer order had been passed, it ought not to have been disturbed without any requirement of administrative exigency. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order as I am not able to ascertain whether there was really an administrative exigency to pass such an order. However, the petitioner may move a representation before the Competent Authority within a period of one week from today and if he does so, the same shall be decided by the respondents-authorities within a period of two weeks thereafter. For a period of three weeks, the interim order, passed by this Court on 26-10-1998, shall remain in force. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******