ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. 1. The issues involved in these three writ petitions are interwoven, therefore, it is felt appropriate to decide the same together by this common order. 2. The facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petitions are that both the petitioners are working on the post of Patwari. At the time of inception of the present controversy, petitioner Samay Singh Meena was posted as Reserve Patwari, Tehsil Office, Merta, whereas petitioner Suresh Kumar posted at Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi, Tehsil Riyanbadi, District Nagaur. The respondent department issued a transfer order dated 22.02.2024, whereby petitioner Samay Singh Meena was transferred from Reserve Patwari, Tehsil Office, Merta to Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi, Tehsil Riyanbadi, District Nagaur. The name of the petitioner Suresh Kumar was not mentioned in the said order, however, since another person was transferred to the post he was working, he approached this court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3072/2024 challenging the order dated 22.02.2024 to the extent of transfer of Samay Singh Meena to Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi and sought a direction for the respondents not to relieve him. The matter was listed before the court and an interim order dated 07.03.2024 was passed in favour of the petitioner, whereby the respondents were directed not to relieve the petitioner from his present place of posting. However, they were given liberty to pass fresh and appropriate orders in terms of law. In the meanwhile, before passing of the aforesaid interim order, petitioner Samay Singh Meena had been relieved from Tehsil Office Merta on 28.02.2024. The District Collector (Land Records), Nagaur passed an order dated 28.02.2024, whereby Samay Singh Meena was given posting at Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi in place of Suresh Kumar and the latter was kept Awaiting Posting Order. Petitioner Samay Singh Meena joined his service at Riyanbadi on 06.03.2024, on which day, the Tehsildar (Land Records), Riyanbadi issued an order directing petitioner Suresh Kumar to hand over his charge to the former. Be that as it may, after passing of the interim order dated 07.03.2024, the respondents issued another transfer order dated 10.03.2024, whereby transfer of the petitioner Samay Singh Meena to Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi was cancelled and he was transferred to Tehsil Begu, District Chittorgarh. By the same order, the Awaiting Posting Order of petitioner Suresh Kumar was cancelled and he was re-posted at Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi. By the same order, the Awaiting Posting Order of petitioner Suresh Kumar was cancelled and he was re-posted at Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi. By the order dated 12.03.2024, petitioner Samay Singh was relieved from Riyanbadi and petitioner Suresh Kumar was given the said posting. Being aggrieved of the order dated 10.03.2024, petitioner Samay Singh Meena preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4478/2024, wherein an interim order dated 18.03.2024 came to be passed, whereby the effect and operation of the order dated 10.03.2024 was stayed qua the petitioner. After passing of the said interim order, the respondent District Collector (Land Records), Nagaur passed an order dated 01.04.2024, whereby the order dated 12.03.2024 relieving petitioner Samay Singh Meena was cancelled and he was given posting at Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi. Thereafter, the respondent District Collector (Land Records), Nagaur passed the order dated 17.06.2024, whereby petitioner Suresh Kumar was transferred and posted at Patwar Mandal Bhanwal, Tehsil Riyanbadi. The Tehsildar (Land Records), Riyanbadi vide order dated 21.06.2024 directed petitioner Suresh Kumar to hand over charge to petitioner Samay Singh Meena. Being aggrieved of the orders dated 17.06.2024 and 21.06.2024, the petitioner Suresh Kumar has preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10387/2024. All the three writ petitions, two preferred by petitioner Suresh Kumar and one preferred by petitioner Samay Singh Meena, are before this court for adjudication. 3. Learned counsel representing petitioner Samay Singh Meena submits that after filing of the writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4478/2024) and passing of the interim order dated 18.03.2024, the respondents have cancelled the impugned transfer order dated 10.03.2024 as well as the relieving order dated 12.03.2024. Thus, in view of the subsequent development, the grievance of the petitioner has subsided and if this court is not inclined to pass any order adverse to his interest in the connected writ petitions filed by Suresh Kumar, the writ petition filed by him may be disposed of as infructuous. Petitioner Samay Singh is also private respondent in the writ petitions filed by petitioner Suresh Kumar, thus, learned counsel has also addressed the court in the capacity of counsel appearing for the respondent in those writ petitions and opposed the submissions made therein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Suresh Kumar submits that the impugned transfer and relieving orders are unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and shows malafide on the part of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Suresh Kumar submits that the impugned transfer and relieving orders are unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and shows malafide on the part of the respondents. As per him, the impugned orders have been passed only with an intention to accommodate the private respondent and there is no administrative exigency involved. The petitioner has spent a period of less than two years at the place from where he has been transferred, which is clearly in contravention of the Circulars dated 05.05.1989 and 30.10.1993 issued by the Board of Revenue providing that a Patwari should not be ordinarily transferred before completing a period of 5 years at a place. He, thus, prays that the impugned orders being bad in the eye of law deserves to be quashed and the writ petition may be allowed. 5. Learned counsel representing the State submit that the impugned transfer orders were passed in the administrative exigency. It is a case where large number of employees were transferred and the petitioner was not singled out for the same, thus, the allegation of malafide is ill-founded. They submit that the petitioner is working on a transferrable post and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. He cannot claim as a right to remain posted at a particular place. The circulars issued by the Board of Revenue regarding transfer policy are not mandatory in nature and issued for better administration and in public interest the Government can transfer an employee to any place. Furthermore, subsequent to filing of the writ petitions, the respondents have accommodated the petitioners at suitable places and there should be no grievance remaining now. With these submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 7. The respondents issued the initial order of transfer on 22.02.2024, whereby as many as 583 Patwaris working across the State of Rajasthan have been transferred. Thus, the same is not a simplicitor transfer order of any one or two specific employees and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the same has been passed with malice, malfide and baisness, rather the same seems to be passed for better administration. Hence, the allegations of the petitioner Suresh Kumar regarding malafide, discrimination and favouritism are completely baseless and ill-founded. 8. Hence, the allegations of the petitioner Suresh Kumar regarding malafide, discrimination and favouritism are completely baseless and ill-founded. 8. The petitioners are working on the post of Patwari, which is a transferable post. It is well-settled principle that transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. An employee cannot, as a matter of right, claim to remain posted at a particular place. So far as the circulars dated 05.05.1989 and 30.10.1993 are concerned, the same are not mandatory in nature and just a transfer policy. Furthermore, by the order dated 17.06.2024, of which petitioner Suresh Kumar is aggrieved, he has been transferred from Patwar Mandal Riyanbadi, Tehsil Riyanbadi to Patwar Mandal Bhanwal, Tehsil Riyanbadi, i.e. within the same Tehsil. 8. Transfer is an implied condition of service and the power is always vested in the Government to transfer an employee in administrative exigency. In the case at hand the respondents have exercised this power for better administration. So far as the power to interfere in transfer orders is concerned, the law on the point is no more res integra in view of the catena of judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :- “4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are 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 malafide. 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. 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. 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 over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders.” 10. In State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal and Ors. reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :- “7. It is too late in the day for any Government Servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. 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 contra in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.” 11. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and Ors. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and Ors. reported in (2004) 12 SCC 299 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :- “4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by malafide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see Ambani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa MANU/SC/1997/1995 :, 1995(6)SCALE41). Unless the order of transfer is visited by malafide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it.” 12. In light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that present one is not such a case, where this court should exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the impugned transfer and relieving orders. Furthermore, it is already noted that the order impugned in the case of petitioner Samay Singh Meena has already been cancelled and as such, the writ petition preferred by him has become infructuous. So far as the writ petitions filed by petitioner Suresh Kumar are concerned, during the pendency of the same, the respondents have passed a fresh order, whereby he has been transferred to another Patwar Mandal within the same tehsil. As has been discussed hereinabove, the respondents have vested right to pass such an order in administrative exigency and in ordinary circumstances, the courts should be reluctant to interfere in such an order. Furthermore, this court feels that in the changed circumstances, when the respondents have on their own passed appropriate orders giving posting to petitioners Samay Singh Meena and Suresh Kumar at suitable places, if any order is passed by this court at this stage, the same would rather be detrimental to smooth administration. 13. As an upshot of the discussion made herein above, since subsequent to filing of these writ petitions, the respondents have passed fresh orders accommodating the petitioners at suitable places, the orders impugned in both the writ petitions are declared non est. All the three writ petitions are disposed of. The stay petitions are also disposed of. 14. No order as to costs.