JUDGMENT : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 29.09.2019 and 22.10.2019, whereby the petitioner, a School Lecturer has been transferred from Bhandukalan Luni to Budakiya Bhopalgarh and the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected, respectively. 2. Aggrieved against the order of transfer, the petitioner approached this Court by filing SBCWP No.14695/2019, which came to be decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 04.10.2019, wherein the Court noticing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the certificate Annex.1 reflect permanent disability upto 45% due to partial blindness of the petitioner, directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 30 days and stayed the effect & operation of order dated 29.09.2019 subject to the final outcome of the decision on the representation. 3. The petitioner made a fresh representation, inter-alia, indicating his physical disability and sought restoration of his place of posting. The representation has been decided by order dated 22.10.2019, wherein reference has been made to the directions dated 24.09.2019 and the fact that the case of the petitioner does not fall within any of the category as per the circular, who have been kept out of the scope of transfer. Whereafter, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and finally it was opined that as the demand made by the petitioner was not as per the Rules, there was no reason to modify/cancel the order dated 29.09.2019 and consequently, rejected the representation made by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the respondents have passed the order in mechanical manner by simply referring to the circular dated 24.09.2019 whereas this Court had directed the respondents to decide the representation in view of the submissions made before the Court and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Submissions have been made elaborating the difficulties faced by the petitioner on account of his visual disability as well as further difficulties in relation to having suffered problem in the spine. 6. Submissions have also been made that the petitioner was already traveling 30 km. for reaching to the place of his posting every day and now he has been transferred to a place which is about 80 km. 6. Submissions have also been made that the petitioner was already traveling 30 km. for reaching to the place of his posting every day and now he has been transferred to a place which is about 80 km. away from the petitioner’s residence, which has virtually made it impossible for the petitioner to perform his duties and therefore, since passing of the order dated 22.10.2019, the petitioner is on leave and therefore, order impugned deserves to be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order passed on representation has dealt with the issues as raised by the petitioner as the petitioner has sought cancellation of the order of transfer. No prayer was made to transfer the petitioner to a nearby vacant post and therefore, the said aspect was not considered. 8. Submissions have been made that once the representation as made has been decided, no interference is called for under extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The facts pertaining to the petitioner’s visual disability are not in dispute, which fact was noticed by this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner and opportunity was given to the petitioner to file representation and the respondents are directed to deal with the same appropriately. 11. A bare look at the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the respondents would reveal that instead of dealing with the issues as raised by the petitioner and noticed by this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition, the respondents have mechanically examined as to whether the indications pertaining to physical disability made by the petitioner fell within the parameters as laid down by the State Government in its circular dated 24.09.2019 and by simply observing that the submissions made were not as per the Rules, has rejected the representation. 12. It has been observed by this Court in several other matters also and the directions were issued in relation to the manner in which the representation should be dealt with by the respondents, which directions apparently have not been followed by the respondents while deciding the representation made by the petitioner. 13. This Court in the case of Vimla Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 13. This Court in the case of Vimla Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ petition No.15035/2019, decided on 17.10.2019, inter-alia, observed as under :- “However, once the respondents have provided for a mechanism of filing representations and the representations are being filed by the teachers, the filing of the representation and its consideration by the respondents cannot be made an empty formality. But a perusal of orders passed by the respondents reveal that mechanical orders are being passed by relying on the circular dated 24.09.2019, which manner of deciding representations by the respondents cannot be countenanced, rather the same deserves condemnation. The empty formality being undertaken by the respondents is apparently an eye-wash only with a view to some how implement the transfer orders, which have already been passed without taken into consideration the difficulties of the teachers involved. It is sine qua non that the representation made must be decided by way of an speaking order dealing with the grievances raised and not merely noticing the same and rejecting the same.” 14. Once the Court directs for consideration of a representation, the respondents are expected to deal with the same in an objective manner and not confine themselves to the circulars issued, inasmuch as, in case the action was contrary to the circulars, there was no occasion for sending back the matter to the respondents for reconsideration. 15. The very fact that the matter has been sent back to the respondents necessary means that the respondents are required to consider the circumstances which are different from what has been indicated in the circulars and therefore, instead of mechanically dealing with the issues, the respondents are required to apply their mind and pass appropriate orders. 16. The petitioner also on his part, apparently made a very casual representation, probably inspired by the interim order, which was granted by this Court till the decision of the representation and did not indicate any additional issues, which are sought to be now argued before this Court in relation to the other physical difficulty being suffered by the petitioner and the distance of the school from the place of his residence. 17. Further availability of any vacant position nearby also has not been indicated by the petitioner, which aspect may also have led to pass of a cursory order on part of the respondents. 18. 17. Further availability of any vacant position nearby also has not been indicated by the petitioner, which aspect may also have led to pass of a cursory order on part of the respondents. 18. In view of the above fact situation, the order passed by the respondents dated 22.10.2019 (Annex.5) deciding the representation pursuant to the directions issued by this Court cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, set-aside. 19. The petitioner may make a fresh representation and the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the said representation alongwith a copy of this order appropriately keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore. 20. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.