JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is working on the post of Patwari at Kankani, the Sub Divisional Officer, Luni passed an order dated 06.01.2011 for his transfer from Kankani to Khara Bera Purohitan in his sub-division, which is illegal. 3. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per judgment of Dr. Pushpa Mehta's case, reported in 2000 (1) RLW 233 , an employee cannot be transferred if his retirement is within two years, therefore, transfer order deserves to be quashed because petitioner is going to be superannuated within 14 months, therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and order dated 06.01.2011 (Annexure-1) may be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is power left with the S.D.O. under the notification issued recently to transfer any Patwari within his sub-division. Further, it is pointed out that petitioner is residing in Jodhpur and he has been transferred from Kankani to Khara Bera Purohitan within subdivision by the S.D.O., Luni, therefore, as per verdict of Dr. Pushpa Mehta's case (supra), petitioner cannot claim his posting at Kankani on the ground that he is going to be superannuated within 14 months, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that transfer order has been passed by the S.D.O., Luni while exercising powers given under the Rules, therefore, jurisdiction of Sub Divisional Officer, Luni cannot be questioned. 6. In this case, admittedly petitioner is residing in Jodhpur and transfer order has been passed by the S.D.O. within his subdivision, therefore, the facts of present case are altogether different than the case of Dr. Pushpa Mehta rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. 7. The transfer is an incident of service, it cannot be interfered unless there is allegation of mala fide or transfer is against statutory provision of Rules. In this case, it appears that on administrative exigency, which clearly emerges from column No.6, the Sub Divisional Officer, Luni has passed the impugned order, which seems to be passed on administrative exigency. 8. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******