JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, who is a lady teacher Gr. HI, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing her writ petition No. 2571/2000 filed against the impugned order of transfer dated 22.7.2000 (Annex. 2), whereby, she was transferred from Jaisalmer to Nehdai i.e. at a distance of 70-75 kms. 2. Instead of making representation against her transfer the petitioner thought it fit to challenge the same by way of writ petition before this Court, therefore, in our considered opinion the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed her writ petition in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme to Court in case of Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1991 S.C. 532 and Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, reported in AIR 1992 S.C. page 519. 3. While dismissing her writ petition, the learned single Judge observed that if she is aggrieved of her transfer then she may prefer representation, stating therein all the grievances to the competent authority within a period of two weeks and if she does so, the competent authority will pass appropriate order according to law within a period of three weeks thereof. 4. Instead of filing representation as observed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner thought it fit to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge by way of this special appeal. 5. At the time of hearing of this appeal, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Shri Purohit that the policy of the State Govt. is to keep spouses at a particular station as far as possible. By transferring her from Jaisalmer her entire family is disturbed. It was also submitted by learned counsel Shri Purohit for the appellant petitioner that she has got school going children and if her case is not considered then entire family will suffer. 6. In our considered opinion, as observed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner ought to have approached the competent authority by way of proper representation. 7. In view of the above, learned counsel Shri Arjun Purohit states that appellant-petitioner will make suitable representation before the competent is authority within one month from today. However, he requested that till her representation is decided the impugned order of transfer be kept in abeyance. 8. 7. In view of the above, learned counsel Shri Arjun Purohit states that appellant-petitioner will make suitable representation before the competent is authority within one month from today. However, he requested that till her representation is decided the impugned order of transfer be kept in abeyance. 8. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant petitioner is directed to make such representation before the competent authority against her transfer order. On receiving such representation the competent authority shall decide the same after extending an opportunity of hearing to the appellant petitioner as early as possible preferably within three months thereof. It goes without saying that the competent authority shall decide the representation in accordance with law. However, we hope and trust that the competent authority shall decide the same sympathetically. Till the representation of the appellant petitioner is decided, the impugned transfer order shall remain in abeyance and the respondents will permit the appellant petitioner to continue to work at the place where she was working before the order of transfer was passed. 9. With these observations and directions, this special appeal is disposed of.Special appeal dismissed. *******