JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.11.2001 (Annex.3), by which respondent No. 2 has transferred the petitioner vice respondent No. 5, while considering her representation dated 30.6.2001 in view of the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Civil (vices Appellate Tribunal (for short, The Tribunal") dated 27.6,2001 (Annex.2). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that respondent No. 2 issued the order dated 6.1.2001 (Annex.l) transferring the petitioner vice respondent No. 5 from Jetpur to Pall on the post of Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, respondent No. 5 challenged the said order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 27.6.2001 (Annex.2) directed respondent No. 5 to move a representation against the said impugned transfer order dated 6.1.2001 (Annex.1) and disposed of the appeal making certain observations in her favour. Respondent No.2 disposed of the representation of respondent No.5 in pursuance of the observations made by the Tribunal and vide order dated 6.11.2001 (Annex.3) restored the position. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. G.K. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a large number of issues including that the order of the Tribunal was without application of mind as petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 are Upper Division Clerks and the direction had been issued by the Tribunal considering both the parties as teachers; moreso, the Tribunal did not have the competence to issue direction to the Statutory Authority to transfer the persons who are posted at a particular place for a long period, nor it could have issued the direction to show any sympathy in favour of a particular employee merely because she was a woman, hence the order passed by the Competent Authority is nothing but a compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal, which could not be held to be justified in the eyes of law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Trivedi and Mr. R.M. Bohra, learned counsel for respondents, have opposed the submissions made by Mr. Vyas, raising a technical Issue that if petitioner was aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal, he could have approached the Court for setting aside the same and he cannot challenge the order passed by the Authority in pursuance thereof. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. 6. Vyas, raising a technical Issue that if petitioner was aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal, he could have approached the Court for setting aside the same and he cannot challenge the order passed by the Authority in pursuance thereof. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. 6. Undoubtedly, it is evident from the judgment and order dated 27.6.2001 that the Tribunal had decided the said appeal making unwarranted observations and it is true that the Tribunal proceeded considering it as the case of teachers though both the parties are Upper Division Clerks. This may be a case of non-application of mind and cannot be a mere typographical error In the judgment of the Tribunal. The true translation of the observations made by the Tribunal is as under: "The grievance raised by the appellant makes it evident that her case has not been considered sympathetically and, thus, the order had not been passed with doing complete justice as per her expectation. She is a woman and male members, having longer stay, had not been transferred. In such circumstances, it becomes necessary that the appellant may make a representation ventilating all her grievances before the Competent Authority within a period of fifteen days. The Tribunal expects that considering the seriousness of the grievances of the appellant, her representation for her posting at Pali shall be considered sympathetically and whenever new transfer list is issued, she should not have the grievance that injustice has been done to her...." 7. The question does arise: whether the Tribunal was justified In making such observations and whether the Authority had passed the consequential order considering the administrative exigency; or just complied with the observations/direction made by the Tribunal. 8. In an identical case, i.e. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 , the Apex Court depricated the practice of Courts and Tribunals making such observations in favour of an employee merely being a woman. 9. The Court can interfere with the impugned transfer order only if the transfer order is in contravention of the statutory provisions or had been passed on malafide reasons. The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions. 9. The Court can interfere with the impugned transfer order only if the transfer order is in contravention of the statutory provisions or had been passed on malafide reasons. The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions. It is entirely upto the competent authority to decide when, where on at what point of time a public servant it to be transferred from his present posting. (Vide Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 ; Shilpi Bose (supra); Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1991 SC 1605 ; Chief Manager (Tel.) N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, AIR 1995 SC 813 ; State of U.P. v. Dr. R.N. Prasad, 1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 151 ; Union of India & ors. v. Ganesh Dan Singh, 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 214 ; N.K. Singh v. Union of India & ors. 1994 (6) SCC 98 ; and Abani Kante Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 169 ). 10. An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work on a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and Court cannot interfere with a transfer order/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency. In Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshaai, AIR 1989 SC 1433 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." 11. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, AIR 1995 SC 813 . 12. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." 11. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, AIR 1995 SC 813 . 12. In Union of India v. H.N. Kirtania, AIR 1989 SC 1774 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interferred with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of malafide." 13. Thus, it Is clear that Court can interfere with the transfer order only on the grounds of malafides or if the order is found to be in violation of statutory Rules. 14. In Shilpi Bose (supra), the Apex Court has held that order of transfer/posting "issued by the competent authority did not violate any of her legal right." The employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right for his posting at a particular place. The same view has been taken by this Court in Jagdish Chandra Ojha v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (3) RLW 2091 and by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Archana Patni v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 WLR 415 . 15. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Kourav, AIR 1995 SC 1056 , it has been held by the Apex Court that it is not permissible for the writ Court or Tribunal to go into the relative hardship of an employee which may be caused by his transfer/posting. It is for the competent authority/employer to consider the facts of a given case and mitigate the real hardship In the interest of good and efficient administration. If the employee makes a representation before the Competent Authority against the impugned transfer order ventilating all his grievances, the employer is under a solemn duty to consider his representation and the said authority cannot brush-aside the grievances of the employee being personal in nature. Therefore, it is for the employer and not for the Court to consider the grievances of the employee, if the same are personal in nature. In Dr. Archana Patni (supra), this Court held that question of longer stay of some of the employees is that a ground for interference by the Courts. 16. Therefore, it is for the employer and not for the Court to consider the grievances of the employee, if the same are personal in nature. In Dr. Archana Patni (supra), this Court held that question of longer stay of some of the employees is that a ground for interference by the Courts. 16. It is evident from the impugned order dated 6.11.2001 (Annx.3) that the Authority had merely compiled with the observations/direction made by the Tribunal and the observations made by the Tribunal were unwarranted and uncalled for. There was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to make such observations. The Authority has to apply its mind independently and take a decision where the services of its employee are required in administrative exigency and unless the Court or Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the order of transfer/posting is contrary to the Statutory Rules, or had been passed on malafide reasons, no interference can be called for. Even the personal grievances of employee have to considered by the employer and not by the Court/Tribunal. 17. Thus, in view of the above, the impugned order dated 6.11.2001 (Annex.3), being nothing but an execution of the order dated 27.6.2001 (Annex.2) passed by the Tribunal, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law (though not under challenge but is worth to be ignored), the order is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pass appropriate order of transfer and posting, of petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 considering the administrative exigency and not being influenced by the order passed by the Tribunal. The order may be passed afresh within two weeks from the date of filing a certified copy of this order, which petitioner is directed to file within one week from today. Till then, status quo shall be maintained. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******