ORDER 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 08.12.2021 as well as the order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the transfer order was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is working on the post of Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Moti Katla, Jaipur was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Narayana, Jaipur vide order dated 25.09.2021, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal No.4789/2021 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as "Tribunal") in which the learned Tribunal vide order dated 27.10.2021 stayed operation of the order dated 25.09.2021 with liberty to the Department to post the petitioner in District Jaipur without change in the Treasury Office, as only 11 months period was left in the retirement of the petitioner. In compliance of the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Tribunal, the Department reconsidered case of the petitioner for giving her posting in District Jaipur without change in the Treasury Office and passed the order dated 08.12.2021, by which, the petitioner was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Barodiya, Virat Nagar, District Jaipur on the post of Principal, however, she was not posted in Jaipur block as no post of Principal was lying vacant/available in block Jaipur. The petitioner challenged the order dated 08.12.2021 before the Tribunal by filing appeal No.6267/2021, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.12.2021. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 08.12.2021 has been passed by the respondents in an arbitrary manner and with malafide intention just to accommodate the respondent No.2. Counsel further submits that at the time of filing of appeal, only 11 months' time remained in retirement of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the post of Principal is still lying vacant in Jaipur City, however, the respondents have not adjusted the petitioner in Jaipur, City. 4. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Dr. Smt. Pushpa Mehta Vs. Counsel further submits that the post of Principal is still lying vacant in Jaipur City, however, the respondents have not adjusted the petitioner in Jaipur, City. 4. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Dr. Smt. Pushpa Mehta Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) WLC (Raj) Page725, where in para No.4, it has been held as under:- "4. In the instant case, the second respondent is due to retire in January 2001 and the appellant has long to go in service. The Tribunal was of the view that policy of the Government has been that ordinarily, an employee at the verge of retirement, should not be disturbed. It appears that the State Government was also satisfied with the reasoning given by the Tribunal and, therefore, it did not prefer to challenge the said order. It is only the appellant, who is interested in posting at Udaipur, has preferred to challenge the order of the Tribunal. It may be noticed that in the opinion of the Tribunal, the order the transfer was mala fide for the reasons that it has been passed in order to only accommodate the appellant. This finding gets confirmation from the fact that the State Government has chosen not to challenge the order of the Tribunal. Thus, there appears to be no administrative reasons to transfer Dr. (Mrs.) Pushpa Mehta to Udaipur and to disturb Dr. (Mrs.) Shanta Dubey, who is at the verge of retirement. We are of the view that unless there are compelling reasons, ordinarily, an employee should not be disturbed from the place of his/her posting, when he/she is at the verge of retirement. An employee should be given sufficient time, which may be of two years or so to plan peacefully his/her post- retirement life. This can be the legitimate expectation of an employee who has served the Department for major part of his/her life. In exceptional case, if the transfer in such case is felt necessary in the public interest, it must be kept in mind while giving the fresh posting that minimum inconvenience is caused to the concerned employee. Any transfer contrary to aforesaid principle will lead to interference that the order is malafide. In exceptional case, if the transfer in such case is felt necessary in the public interest, it must be kept in mind while giving the fresh posting that minimum inconvenience is caused to the concerned employee. Any transfer contrary to aforesaid principle will lead to interference that the order is malafide. We find no good reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge." 5. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Dr. Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2003(1) WLN 63 where in para No. 15 & 23, it has been held as under:- "15. It may be stated here that if the transfers are made in order to adjust particular persons with no reasonable basis, such type of transfers can be termed as malafide one and liable to be quashed. 23. So far as the facts of the present case in hand are concerned, since the petitioner is continuing on the post of Associate Professor, Radio-therapy and the impugned transfer order Annex. 4 dated 10.8.2000 qua the petitioner has become redundant because of the stay order passed by this Court and furthermore, since the impugned order Annex. 4 was passed in order to accommodate or adjust the respondent No. 3 at Bikaner and for that, the petitioner was transferred from Banker to Ajmer and that it was not passed on administrative exigency or in public interest, therefore, the impugned order Annex. 4 dated 10.8.2000 qua the petitioner can be classified as malafide one and, thus, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed." 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has been posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Barodiya, Virat Nagar, District Jaipur, as no post of Principal in Jaipur block was available at the relevant point of time and the post of Principal at Government Senior Secondary School, Barodiya Virat Nagar, Jaipur was vacant, therefore, taking that administrative exigency into consideration, the order dated 08.12.2021 was passed by the respondents posting the petitioner at the aforesaid place. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 has held as under:- '3.The High Court, in interfering with the order of transfer, has relied on two circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a result of the stay on the order of transfer, the headquarters of the respondent will remain at Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his headquarters will continue to remain at Mumbai. The second reason, which was weighed with the High Court, is that the spouse of the respondent suffers from a cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of these reasons can furnish a valid justification for the High Court to take recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in passing an order of injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High Court has not even found a prima facie case to the effect that the order of transfer was either mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court could not have dictated to the employer as to where the respondent should be posted during the period of suspension. Individual hardships are matters for the Union of India, as an employer, to take a dispassionate view. 4.However, we are categorically of the view that the impugned order of the High Court interfering with the order of transfer was in excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise of judicial power. We are constrained to observe that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the settled principles and precedents which have consistently been enunciated and followed by this Court. The manner in which judicial power has been exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful order of transfer is disquieting. We express our disapproval'. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 178, in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10, has held as under:- '8. We express our disapproval'. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 178, in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10, has held as under:- '8. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal; SCC P.406 para 7). 9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar & Ors.1, this Court held : (SCC p.661, para 4) "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to- day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.' 10. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to- day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.' 10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India, this Court reiterated that : (SCC p. 103; para 6)\'6. ... the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a Government Servant to an equivalent post without adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides or violation of any specific provision....' 10. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner is a Government employee and she cannot claim to serve at a particular place of her choice, secondly, the petitioner was working on the gazetted post i.e. Principal of School and the respondents have posted the petitioner, due to administrative exigency, as no post of Principal in Jaipur block was available at the relevant point of time and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as early retirement of the petitioner, she has been adjusted in District Jaipur itself, thirdly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India & Rajendra Singh (both supra); in my considered view, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of.