ORDER 1. The instant intra-Court appeal preferred u/S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.1.2020 exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution dismissing the petition in question by which challenge was made to the order of transfer of petitioner (Secretary, Gram Panchayat) from Gram Panchayat Chanoti, Janpad Panchayat Sabalgarh to Gram Panchayat Kaimarakalan, Janpad Panchayat, Sabalgarh. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant herein submits that the impugned transfer was an outcome of mala fide exercise of power on the part of respondent No. 3 herein to accommodate respondent No. 4. It is also submitted that the impugned transfer was politically motivated being based on recommendation made by MLA, respondent No. 5 herein. 4. The ground of malice and the transfer being politically motivated did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge held that though the petitioner has been displaced due to arrival of respondent No. 4 as reliever on his own request but in the administrative set up of the Government, there are occasions where Government has to make transfers on request of an employee based on genuine compassionate ground. If such a transfer on compassionate ground is effected, it necessarily leads to disturbing another person which in the present case happens to the petitioner/appellant. Such a transfer on compassionate ground on own request can be challenged only if the person displaced can demonstrate any urgent/emergent compassionate ground of equal or higher intensity, justifying his retention, but not otherwise. This exercise too can be undertaken by the senior administrative authority and cannot be left for the displaced employee to decide at his own personal level. Thus, even if a person like the petitioner/appellant herein is transferred out in public interest to replace another person who comes on his own request on compassionate ground, the person displaced i.e. the petitioner has to still establish before a Court of law that any of the legitimate grounds available for successfully assailing an order of transfer are made out. These grounds are, proven mala fides, violation of any Constitutional or statutory provision or impugned transfer adversely affecting any of the service conditions. 5. These grounds are, proven mala fides, violation of any Constitutional or statutory provision or impugned transfer adversely affecting any of the service conditions. 5. No other ground except the said three grounds is available to successfully challenge an order of transfer of service. All other grounds of compassion, sympathy, etc. lie within the exclusive domain of administrative authority to be considered and not within the purviews of this Court to adjudicate upon. 6. Since the petitioner has failed to point out any of the aforesaid three legitimate grounds, this Court does not see any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. Accordingly, present appeal stands dismissed sans cost.