Honble VYAS, J.–The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the impugned order of transfer dtd. 15.7.2005 (Annex. 4) may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. (2). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer under the control of Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Jodhpur. Vide order dtd. 11.11.2003, the petitioner was transferred from Bikaner to Jodhpur. Thereafter vide order dtd. 2.7.2004, the petitioner was transferred from Jodhpur to Jaitaran. (3). The petitioner also averred in the writ petition that after a stay of four months at Jaitaran, vide order dtd. 29.9.2004 (Annex. 3) the petitioner was transferred from Jaitaran to Pokaran. The petitioner accordingly joined the duties at Pokaran. Thereafter vide order dtd. 14.7.2005 (Annex. 4), the petitioner was transferred from Pokaran to Sumerpur. This order was passed just a day before imposition of ban. Thereafter vide order dated 15.7.2005, the order dtd. 14.7.2005 was modified and the petitioner was transferred from Sumerpur to Falna. (4). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer and he has been transferred vide order dtd. 15.7.2005 during the currency of the ban on transfer. It has also been submitted that transfer of the petitioner is not in administrative exigency nor the same is in public interest. (5). Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent No. 1 and it has been submitted that this petitioner has been transferred in administrative exigency. It has also been submitted that at the place of petitioner Sh. P.R. Vishnoi has been transferred to Pokran and he has joined the duties at Pokran. Therefore, also the transfer order should not interfered by this Court. (6). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined and scanned the material available on record. (7). It is axiomatic that if a transfer order has been made in violation of a statutory rule or regulation, it will be illegal. This is also the obvious implication of the dicta of the Honble Supreme Court that a transfer order is liable to be struck down if made in violation of the rules. (8). (7). It is axiomatic that if a transfer order has been made in violation of a statutory rule or regulation, it will be illegal. This is also the obvious implication of the dicta of the Honble Supreme Court that a transfer order is liable to be struck down if made in violation of the rules. (8). The transfer is preogative of the authorities concerned and court should not normally interfere therewith, except when transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala-fides, or is in violation of any statutory provision, or has been passed by an authority not competent to pass such as order. (9). The Government employee cannot claim his posting at a particular place. That apart the respondents are not required to disclose administrative exigency in the order of transfer itself. (10). From the facts of the present case, the petitioner has not been able to establish that his transfer is actuated with mala- fides or the same has been passed by the not a competent authority. So far as the argument raised by the petitioner that he has been subjected to frequent transfer is also not tenable, inasmuch as first time the petitioner was transferred from Bikaner to Jodhpur vide order dtd. 11.11.2003 and thereafter, he was transferred from Jodhpur to Jaitaran after a period of 8 months vide order dtd. 2.7.2004 (Annex. 2). The petitioner was transferred from Jaitaran to Pokran vide order dtd. 29.9.2004 at his own request. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer. (11). So far as argument raised by the petitioner that the petitioner has been transferred during the period of ban is concerned, the same is also not tenable, inasmuch as the petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 15.7.2005 whereas the ban on transfer came into effect w.e.f. 16.7.2005. That apart the petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer, JVVNL. The service provided by the JVVNL are essential services relating to the public at large and if in administrative exigency some transfers have been made during the currency of ban, it will not have any effect on the validity of transfer order and the same cannot be challenged on this ground. In administrative exigency in the services like JVVNL the transfers can be effect even during the currency of ban. Therefore, this argument raised by the petitioner also stand rejected. (12). In administrative exigency in the services like JVVNL the transfers can be effect even during the currency of ban. Therefore, this argument raised by the petitioner also stand rejected. (12). Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:- 1. Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Raj. (RLW 1990 (2) 13) 2. Brij Lal Bagoria vs. State of Raj. (RLW 1990 (1) 579) 3. Om Prakash Sharma vs. State of Raj. (RLW 1989 (2) 422) 4. Dr. Mahendra Kumar vs. Dr. Dhanesh Kumar Sharma (WLC 1993 (1) 195) (13). All these authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the petitioner has not been subjected to frequent transfer nor the petitioner has been able to show that he has been transferred with mala-fide intention. (14). For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. (15). No order as to costs.