JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions, essentially relating to the same subject matter, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order. 2. The relevant facts and the background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner, holding the post of Accountant and posted in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Churu ('the DTO, Churu'), came to be transferred to the office of Panchayat Samiti, Churu by the order dated 22.12.2011. By the same order, the respondent No.3, holding the post of Junior Accountant, was posted in the office of the DTO, Churu in place of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur with connected matter. ('the Tribunal'), being Appeal No.1449/2011, seeking to challenge the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2011 and also prayed for interim relief. On the prayer for interim relief, the Tribunal considered the matter on 25.01.2012 and passed an ex-parte stay order to the effect that if the appellant had not joined pursuant to the impugned order dated 22.12.2011, its operation shall remain stayed until further orders. 3. It appears from the material placed on record that pursuant to the said order dated 22.12.2011, the respondent No.3 had submitted his joining in the office of the DTO, Churu on 28.12.2011; and the DTO, Churu issued an order on 19.01.2012 relieving the petitioner for joining in the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Churu. As noticed, the petitioner had preferred the appeal that was considered on 25.01.2012 and conditional interim order was passed staying the operation of the order impugned. Upon receipt of this stay order dated 25.01.2012, the DTO, Churu purportedly relieved the respondent No.3 by the order dated 02.02.2012 for his joining in the office of the Assistant Director, Agricultural Department, Chidawa, Jhunjhunu pursuant to an earlier order of posting dated 25.10.2011. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No.159/2012; and also submitted his reply in the appeal as filed by the present petitioner. The Tribunal considered the question of interim relief in both the appeals on 26.03.2012 and passed separate orders vacating the interim order as passed in the appeal filed by the present petitioner; and granting with connected matter. The Tribunal considered the question of interim relief in both the appeals on 26.03.2012 and passed separate orders vacating the interim order as passed in the appeal filed by the present petitioner; and granting with connected matter. an interim order in the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 to the effect that the operation of the order dated 02.02.2012 would remain stayed if the appellant (i.e., the respondent No.3 herein) had not joined pursuant thereto. The orders so passed in the two appeals are sought to be questioned in these writ petitions. 5. It is contended that posting the respondent No.3, holding the post of Junior Accountant, on the post of Accountant remains entirely improper; that posting the respondent No. 3 in the office of DTO, Churu has been wholly illegal and unwarranted, particularly when earlier, the Director himself pointed out various reasons including the disciplinary proceedings and punishment orders against the respondent No.3 for not posting him in the transport department dealing with substantial revenue. It is also submitted that impugned order dated 22.12.2011 had been passed only in order to accommodate the respondent No.3 and hence, calls for interference. 6. The Tribunal has found justified the transfer of the petitioner in its impugned order as passed in appeal No.1449/2011 while indicating that the petitioner has remained posted at Churu since the year 1985 and that there was no ground to show that if the transfer order was malafide or un-authorized. The Tribunal has said:- " leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ;g Li"V gS fd Jh vkseizdk'k ( vihy la[;k 1449@2011 ) pw: esa o"kZ 1985 esa dk;Zjr pyk vk jgk gS] orZeku esa Hkh Jh vkseizdk'k dk LFkkukUrj.k iapk;r lfefr pw: esa gh fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa yEch vof/k ds Bgjko ds dkj.k ;fn vkseizdk'k dk LFkkukUrj.k iz'kklfud vk/kkj ij dj fn;k tkrk gS rks blesa fdlh izdkj =`fV ugha gSA vihykFkhZ }kjk ,sls dksbZ rF;k ;k lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;s gS ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g Kkr gks lds fd vkyksP; LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k ns"krkiw.kZ vl{ke vf/kdkjh ;k fof/k fo:) ikfjr fd;k x;k vkns'k gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa Jh vkseizdk'k ( vihy la[;k 1449@2011 ) esa fnukad 25-1-2012 dks ikfjr LFkxu vkns'k okfil fy;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% vf/kdj.k }kjk Jh vkseizdk'k ( vihy la[;k 1449@2011 ) ds i{k esa fnukad 25-1-2012 dks fn;s x;s LFkxu vkns'k dks okfil fy;k tkrk gSA " 7. The Tribunal has found no justification in the order dated 02.02.2012 as passed in relation to the respondent No.3 and has stayed its operation in the order passed in Appeal No.159/2012 while observing as under:- " tgka rd vihykFkhZ Jh fxjh'k pUnz dqekor dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa vihykFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mldk inLFkkiu pw: esa izFke ckj fd;k x;k gS rFkk izR;FkhZ la[;k 3 pw: esa 1985 ls dk;Zjr gSA orZeku esa Hkh izR;FkhZ dzekad 3 dk LFkkukUrj.k pw: esa gh fd;k x;k gSA vihykFkhZ dk eq[; dFku ;g gS fd dk;kZy; ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkjh pw: esa fnukad 28-12-2011 dks dk;ZHkkj xzg.k dj fy;k Fkk vkSj ogka ij dk;Z dj jgk Fkk] ysfdu vkns'k fnukad 2-2-2012 ds }kjk vihykFkhZ dks vkns'k fnukad 25-10-2011 ( izn'kZ ,&1 ) ds }kjk fd;s x;s LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k dh ikyuk esa lgk;d funs'kd d`f"k foLrkj fpM+kok >qU>quw esa dk;ZeqDr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s x;s ftldh ikyuk esa lgk;d funs'kd] d`f"k folrkj] fpM+kok >qU>quw esa dk;ZeqDr fd;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa vihykFkhZ dks vkns'k fnukad 2-2-2012 ds }kjk vuqfpr :i esa dk;ZeqDr fd;k x;k vkSj nksuksa vkns'kksa esa dk;ZeqDr djus dk vk/kkj ugh crk;k x;k gs dsoy ek= Jh vkseizdk'k us vf/kdj.k ls LFkxu ysus ds vk/kkj ij mls lgk;d funs'kd] d`f"k foLrkj] fpM+kok >qU>quw esa yxk;k x;k gSA mijksDr foospu ds mijkUr ;g Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr LFkxu izkFkZuk i= esa cy gSA LFkxu izkFkZuk i= ij vUrfje vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fooknxzLr vkns'k fnukad 2-2-2012 ( izn'kZ ,&7 ) dh ikyuk esa vihykFkhZ us ;fn dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha fd;k gks rks fooknxzLr vkns'k dk fdz;kUo;u (Operation) vihykFkhZ ds lEcU/k esa vf/kdj.k ds vfxze vkns'k rd LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gSA " 8. This Court is not inclined to consider any interference in these matters for several reasons. The transfer is the normal incident of service and undeniably, the petitioner holds a transferable post. By the basic impugned order dated 22.12.2011, he has only been shifted from the office of DTO, Churu to the office of Panchayat Samiti, Churu. It sounds rather strange that the petitioner seeks to question even such a transfer order as if to suggest that he has got with connected matter. some indefeasible right to remain posted only in the office of DTO, Churu. No such right is available nor could be acceded to the petitioner. It sounds rather strange that the petitioner seeks to question even such a transfer order as if to suggest that he has got with connected matter. some indefeasible right to remain posted only in the office of DTO, Churu. No such right is available nor could be acceded to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner has remained posted only at Churu right from the year 1985 gives rise to several obvious questions. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to submit that as per the guidelines, a person holding the post of Accountant is, as far as possible, to be posted in his home district. It goes without saying that the guidelines are not of statutory character and cannot be operated in the manner that puts rather a question mark on the department in regard to the posting of the incumbents. Be that as it may, this particular aspect is left at that only because the subject matter of these writ petitions relate only to the orders on the prayers for interim relief by the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal has, on the relevant considerations, vacated the interim order as earlier passed in favour of the petitioner and has rightly passed interim order in favour of the respondent No.3. In fact, as on 25.01.2012, before the interim order was passed by the Tribunal, the events had taken place that the respondent No.3 had indeed submitted his joining in the office of DTO, Churu as back as on 28.12.2011 and then, the DTO had relieved the present petitioner on 19.01.2012. In the face of the position that the respondent No.3 had submitted his joining and the present petitioner had been relieved, there was no justification for the Tribunal to have passed the order on 25.01.2012 in favour of the petitioner. The Tribunal has rightly vacated such interim order on being apprised of all the with connected matter. relevant facts in Appeal No.1449/2011. As a necessary corollary, the operation and effect of the order dated 02.02.2012 whereby the respondent No.3 was sought to be relieved by the DTO, Churu was required to be stayed and the Tribunal has rightly stayed the same by its other interim order as passed in Appeal No.159/2012. 10. relevant facts in Appeal No.1449/2011. As a necessary corollary, the operation and effect of the order dated 02.02.2012 whereby the respondent No.3 was sought to be relieved by the DTO, Churu was required to be stayed and the Tribunal has rightly stayed the same by its other interim order as passed in Appeal No.159/2012. 10. The matter being considered only in relation to the question of interim relief, not much of the comments on the merits appear requisite but it goes without saying that neither the transfer order could be questioned with an abstract reference to the guidelines nor could be said to be malafide or invalid only if passed in order to accommodate a particular person, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar : AIR 1991 SC 532 that in a given case, a competent authority could issue transfer order even with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship. 11. The petitions fail and are, therefore, dismissed.Petitions Dismissed. *******