JUDGMENT 1. - By The Court (Per Hon'ble Arun Madan J. In this special appeal, order dated 29.8.2000 of the learned Single Judge dismissing SB Civil Writ Petition No. . 3066/2000 has been challenged by the appellants. against order dated 29.8.2000 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Parihar in SBCWP No. 3066/2000.) 2. Admittedly, the appellants as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 9 after having applied for and called upon appear before the Interview Board in February, 2000, were declared successful and accordingly promoted to higher post of the Assistant Administrative Officer as per order dated 3/6.3.2000 (Ann.1) which is ranking list of candidates in order of merit. Pursuant to order (Ann.1), the appellants so also respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were promoted and directed by order dated 24.3.2000 (Ann.2) to join their place of posting within 15 days from the date of receipt of the communication (Ann.2) otherwise the order would stand automatically cancelled. 3. It is the case of the appellants/petitioners that they joined to their respective place of posting on their promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer within stipulated 15 days as per orders of promotion (Anns. 1 & 2), but respondent Nos. 4 to 9 neither joined at their place of posting nor applied for extension of their period nor were they granted such extension of stipulated 15 days' time to join, and therefore, since the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 did not join to their place of posting on higher post, their promotion stood automatically cancelled as is evident from the order dated 24.3.2000 (Ann.1). The dispute arose when the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Insurance Company authorities) changed place of posting in respect of the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 according to their choices/options tendered in their representations by order dated 19.6.2000 (Ann.3). Hence, the appellant challenged the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their petition seeking appropriate writ/order or direction inter alia for : (a) quashing and declaring null & void the action of respondent company in allowing the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to join on promotional post after stipulated 15 days' time since they failed to carry out he directions issued in promotional orders for joining within 15 days time; (b) directing the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to join on promotional post after stipulated 15 days' time since they failed to carry out he directions issued in promotional orders for joining within 15 days time; (b) directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to accommodate all the appellants as per their preferences of posting as given by them at the time of interview and (c) further directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in case new promotion exercise is commenced in July 2000 and thereby if vacancies have fallen at Jaipur, Ganganagar, Banswara & Udaipur the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 be directed to fill up those vacant posts by shifting the appellants as per their preferences of posting. 4. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellants' writ petition summarily finding no merit therein. Hence, this special appeal. 5. We have heard Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the writ petition, annexures thereto as well as grounds raised in the memo of special appeal. Much stress was laid by Shri Lodha on his contention which he had canvassed before the learned Single Judge that since the respondents Nos. 4 to 9 did not join on the higher post within 15 days stipulated in order of promotion, their promotion stood automatically withdrawn and cancelled having not been acted upon but they were allowed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 after expiry of stipulated 15 days time inasmuch as, they were allowed to continue at the same place where they were working before their promotion whereas the appellants have been shifted-to other places against preferential choice of posting and this action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 according to the appellants is not only discriminatory but also deplorable being hit by Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore deserves to be deprecated, especially when none of the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 applied for extension of time to join on promotional posts but they were allowed to join after expiry of stipulated time and lapse of almost three & half months, i.e. contrary to the guidelines issued by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. 6. 4 to 9 applied for extension of time to join on promotional posts but they were allowed to join after expiry of stipulated time and lapse of almost three & half months, i.e. contrary to the guidelines issued by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. 6. During the course of hearing, despite our repeated query to Shri Lodha as to which clause of the transfer policy in respect of the posting upon promotion does cover grievance of the appellants, Shri Lodha failed to show any transfer policy much less any of employees service regulations under which .the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had no jurisdiction to issue orders of posting if the incumbent could not join within stipulated time. Further, Shri Lodha failed to show as to which of the clauses of transfer policy or guidelines or service regulations have been violated by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in allowing the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to join on their promotion at the places where they were earlier working before it after expiry of 15 days stipulated in the order of promotion. 7. As regards the decision in Rameshwar Prasad Vs. M.D. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. ( 1999(8) SCC 381 ) cited by Shri Virendra Lodha, we are of the view that the ratio of this decision is not attracted and does not apply to the instant case, because in Rameshwar Prasad's case (supra), the Apex Court held that to absorb or not to absorb a deputationist is a policy matter, but at the same time, once the policy is accepted and rules are thereunder for such absorption before rejecting the application, there must be justifiable reasons. However, in the case at hand no policy or rules framed for such transfer/posting on promotion has been shown by Shri Lodha, hence ratio decidendi in Rameshwar's case (supra) does not help in advancing any case in favour of the appellants. 8. Hence, as rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge, we are also of the view that by virtue of the impugned action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, seniority of the appellants qua respondent Nos. 8. Hence, as rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge, we are also of the view that by virtue of the impugned action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, seniority of the appellants qua respondent Nos. 4 to 9 has since not been disturbed at all, it is the discretion of the employer to allow its officers or employees to join on promotion even after expiry of the period, if any, inasmuch as further transfer or posting upon promotion are totally within the domain of the administrative authorities and the law is so well settled that in transfer matters or postings, the scope of judicial review is very much restricted in absence of mala fides or arbitrariness, which should be well established. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be held to have acted arbitrarily or violated any of the relevant rules muchless constitutional mandate under Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution in allowing the respondents Nos. 4 to 9 to join even after expiry of 15 days that too at the place where they were working before they were promoted. The court should not interfere with such actions of the employer either for transfer or postings of its officers or employees on their promotion orders issued in administrative exigencies of the Institution or organisation, inasmuch as the transfer or posting of any employee or officer as per their own preference is not a constitutional right. Hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction in such actions of the administrative authorities of the respondent company, impugned in the writ petition. The contentions advanced by Shri Lodha being totally misconceived ate having no merit so as to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore, are out rightly rejected. Consequently, this special appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed summarily.Petition Dismissed. *******