ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. Facts and Grievance of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21085/2025- 1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Articles 14, 19 and 21, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 21.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been placed under ‘Awaiting Posting Order (A.P.O.)’ and his headquarters have been fixed at Police Headquarters, Jaipur. The petitioner submits that the impugned action, in the backdrop of the applicable provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, is arbitrary and unsustainable, being contrary to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. 2. The brief facts of present case is that the petitioner, has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2 – Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner has been placed under Awaiting Posting Order (APO) with his headquarter fixed at Police Headquarters, Jaipur; that the petitioner, while serving as Dy. Superintendent of Police, Women Crime Investigation Cell, Bikaner, was transferred vide order dated 07.10.2024 to discharge duties as Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural, where he duly joined on 14.10.2024; that subsequently, certain villagers submitted a complaint dated 17.10.2024 against one Hemant Sharma alleging caste- based slurs on social media capable of provoking riots, which the petitioner forwarded to the S.H.O., P.S. Bhopalgarh for necessary inquiry and legal action; that upon enquiry, the S.H.O. found that Hemant Sharma, an influential person, had uploaded objectionable messages and had threatened the police, leading to initiation of proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS , 2023 and his custody for maintaining peace; that despite absence of any complaint, departmental inquiry or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued the APO order dated 21.10.2025 fixing his headquarter at Jaipur, followed by the relieving order dated 24.10.2025 issued by respondent No.4; that the petitioner asserts that the impugned order is unsupported by any legally sustainable reason and appears to have been issued only to remove him from Bhopalgarh Circle, amounting to a punitive action without fault, contrary to Rule 25-A of the RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES RULES , 1951, which mandates fulfilment of specific conditions prior to issuance of an APO order; that the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10490/2024, Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein vide order dated 09.09.2024, the Court examined the legal framework governing APO orders; and that the petitioner contends that the impugned action, being bereft of reasons and dehors statutory requirements, is illegal and unsustainable, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate relief. Facts and Grievance of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21567/2025- 1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14, 19 and 21, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Bhopalgarh to the post of Assistant Commandant, Mewar Bheel Core, Banswara, alleging that the said action is arbitrary, violative of the Rajasthan Service Rules, and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. 2. The brief facts of present case is that the petitioner, has approached this Court in the second round of litigation challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 passed by respondent No.2, Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Bhopalgarh to the post of Assistant Commandant, Mewar Bheel Core, Banswara. The relevant factual background is that the petitioner, while serving as Dy. Superintendent of Police, Women Crime Investigation Cell, Bikaner, was transferred vide order dated 07.10.2024 to discharge duties as Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural (Annex.1), where he joined on 14.10.2024 by submitting his joining report (Annex.2). On 17.10.2024, certain villagers submitted a written complaint alleging that one Hemant Sharma had uploaded caste-based slurs on social media (Annex.3), upon which the petitioner forwarded the complaint to the S.H.O., Police Station Bhopalgarh for necessary enquiry and action (Annex.4). The S.H.O., after enquiry, called Hemant Sharma, and upon alleged threats extended to police personnel, initiated proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS , 2023, taking him into custody to maintain peace (Annex.5). Thereafter, an order dated 21.10.2025 was issued by respondent No.2 placing the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Order (APO) with headquarters at Police Headquarters, Jaipur (Annex.6), followed by a relieving order dated 24.10.2025 issued by respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural (Annex.7). Thereafter, an order dated 21.10.2025 was issued by respondent No.2 placing the petitioner under Awaiting Posting Order (APO) with headquarters at Police Headquarters, Jaipur (Annex.6), followed by a relieving order dated 24.10.2025 issued by respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural (Annex.7). According to the petitioner, the APO order was issued without any complaint, enquiry or disciplinary proceedings against him and without recording reasons, and reference is placed upon the judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10490/2024, Dr. Mahesh Kumar Panwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 09.09.2024 (Annex.8), dealing with the conditions for issuance of APO orders under Rule 25-A of the RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES RULES , 1951. In compliance with Annex.6, the petitioner joined at Police Headquarters, Jaipur on 27.10.2025 (Annex.9). The petitioner then challenged the APO order (Annex.6) and relieving order (Annex.7) before this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21085/2025, wherein vide order dated 29.10.2025, the co-ordinate bench of this Court stayed the effect and operation of both orders (Annex.10). Meanwhile, the petitioner was deployed for duty at the Pushkar Fair at Ajmer vide order dated 29.10.2025 (Annex.11), the copy of which was submitted by him through counsel and through the S.P., Ajmer, on 30.10.2025 and 01.11.2025 respectively (Annex.12). Subsequently, on 01.11.2025, the respondent department issued a transfer order transferring the petitioner from Bhopalgarh to Banswara on the post of Assistant Commandant, Mewar Bheel Core (Annex.13), wherein the petitioner’s name appears at Serial No.50. The petitioner contends that the above transfer was issued in continuation of the earlier orders and without recording reasons, despite the fact that he was no longer posted at Bhopalgarh in view of the APO order, and alleges lack of application of mind. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 (Annex.13), the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 4. This Court finds that the core issue arising in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21085/2025 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21567/2025 pertains to the legality and propriety of (i) the impugned APO order dated 21.10.2025 and the consequential relieving order dated 24.10.2025, and (ii) the subsequent transfer order dated 01.11.2025 transferring the petitioner from Bhopalgarh to Mewar Bheel Core, Banswara. The petitions being interlinked factually and legally, they are being examined conjointly. 5. The petitions being interlinked factually and legally, they are being examined conjointly. 5. It is not in dispute that on 29.10.2025, the co-ordinate bench of this Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the APO order dated 21.10.2025 as well as the relieving order dated 24.10.2025. Once such interdiction was issued by the Court, it was incumbent upon the respondents to scrupulously honour the interim protection and ensure that the petitioner was permitted to continue as Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, where he was admittedly serving prior to the impugned APO order. The State-respondents cannot be heard to contend that they were unaware of the order passed on 29.10.202. In such circumstances, the obligation was upon the respondents to restore and allow the petitioner to function at Bhopalgarh soon after stay on APO and relieving order. Their failure to do so reflects a posture inconsistent with administrative fairness and respect for judicial orders and therefore deprecated by this Court. 6. The situation becomes further compounded by the issuance of transfer order dated 01.11.2025, which places the petitioner from the post of Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh to Assistant Commandant, Mewar Bheel Core, Banswara. This subsequent order, ex facie, proceeds on the erroneous assumption that the petitioner continued to hold the post of Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh on 01.11.2025, whereas, in fact, the respondents had already placed him under APO on 21.10.2025 and directed him to mark his attendance at Police Headquarters, Jaipur. Once the order dated 21.10.2025 was passed and thereafter stayed by co-ordinate bench of this Court on 29.10.2025 , the respondents were obligated to comply with the Court’s directive by sending him back to Bhopalgarh but admittedly that was not done. In utter disrespect of order of this court, the interim order was not adhered to; rather, in clear defiance, the petitioner was compelled to discharge duties under the instructions of officers at PHQ, pursuant to which he continued to function as directed to, i.e. to see the law and order situation in Puskar Mela. 7. In utter disrespect of order of this court, the interim order was not adhered to; rather, in clear defiance, the petitioner was compelled to discharge duties under the instructions of officers at PHQ, pursuant to which he continued to function as directed to, i.e. to see the law and order situation in Puskar Mela. 7. It further deserves to be noted that had the respondents complied with the interim order dated 29.10.2025 and restored the petitioner to the post of Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh prior to passing the impugned transfer order dated 01.11.2025, no impropriety could have been attributed to the issuance of such a transfer order or to the recital therein reflecting the petitioner’s posting “from Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh to Banswara”. However, the factual position is to the contrary. On one hand, the respondents failed to honour and implement the Court’s order dated 29.10.2025 by not permitting the petitioner to resume charge as Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh; and on the other hand, the impugned transfer order dated 01.11.2025 proceeds on the premise that the petitioner was functioning as Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh which in fact he was not doing. The record unequivocally reflects that the petitioner was never re-posted back to Bhopalgarh pursuant to the interim protection, nor was he allowed to join there at any point of time. Consequently, unless the petitioner was first restored to Bhopalgarh in compliance with the Court’s order dated 29.10.2025 and had actually assumed charge there, the recital transferring him “from Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh to Banswara” is fundamentally flawed. 8. As a matter of fact, on the date of the transfer order, i.e. 01.11.2025, the petitioner continued to remain at Police Headquarters, Jaipur in APO status, having already joined there on 27.10.2025. In such circumstances, if at all any transfer was to be made, the correct nomenclature ought to have been “from APO at Police Headquarters, Jaipur to Banswara”. The recital indicating transfer from Bhopalgarh is therefore factually and legally unsustainable and manifesting total non application of mind by the authorities and at the same time demonstrating their obstinacy to displace the petitioner from Bhopalgarh, in the hang-haste of which, they forgot where actually the incumbant was working. 9. Administrative orders issued without due circumspection, and in disregard of judicial directions, undermine the sanctity of the rule of law. 9. Administrative orders issued without due circumspection, and in disregard of judicial directions, undermine the sanctity of the rule of law. The manner in which the orders dated 21.10.2025, 24.10.2025 and 01.11.2025 have been issued and handled by the respondents calls for the Court’s serious concern. Judicial orders are not mere formalities; they command compliance. Any deliberate or negligent deviation amounts to defilement and dishonour of the authority of this Court and cannot be countenanced. 10. It also emerges from the record that on 06.11.2025, the department issued another communication showing compliance of the co-ordinate bench of this court’s order dated 29.10.2025 whereby the petitioner was relieved to join back as C.O. Bhopalgarh; it would be worthwhile to reproduce the order dated 06.11.2025, which reads as under:- 11. The order dated 06.11.2025 came to be issued by the P.H.Q., containing instructions for the petitioner’s rejoining as Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, and a plain reading of the same depicts yet another instance of administrative inconsistency. The respondent authority ought to have passed such an order immediately after the interim order staying the APO order was passed by the coordinate Bench. The said order, on a plain reading, appears to have been issued belatedly in an attempt to rectify the earlier error, perhaps upon noticing that this Court had taken cognizance of the non-compliance with the second interim order passed on 06.11.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21567/2025, wherein the transfer order dated 01.11.2025 was under challenge. On 06.11.2025, this Court passed a detailed interim order in the said writ petition, noting grave incongruence in the transfer order, and this court feels that the subsequent action of the respondents appears to be artfully aligned in the light of that judicial interdiction. However, such corrective action ought to have been taken on 30.10.2025 or 31.10.2025 itself, in faithful compliance with the interim order dated 29.10.2025 passed in the earlier writ petition. 12. The interim order dated 06.11.2025 passed by this court in above writ petition would be apt to reproduce herein for ready reference- “1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri B.L. Bhati, learned AAG, seeks some time to file a reply. 3. Heard on stay application. 4. 12. The interim order dated 06.11.2025 passed by this court in above writ petition would be apt to reproduce herein for ready reference- “1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri B.L. Bhati, learned AAG, seeks some time to file a reply. 3. Heard on stay application. 4. The petitioner was serving as Circle Officer, Circle Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural and vide order dated 21.10.2025 (Annexure- 6) he was kept under “Awaiting Posting Order”(APO) and directed to immediately mark his presence at Police Headquarter Jaipur, Rajasthan. Consequent thereto, vide order dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure-7), the petitioner was relieved from the post of Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural and instructed to report at Police Headquarters, Jaipur. 5. The said orders were assailed before Coordinate Bench of this Court, and the Bench, vide order dated 29.10.2025, was pleased to stay the effect and operation of the orders dated 21.10.2025 and 24.10.2025. However, as a matter of fact, prior to the passing of the interim order, the petitioner had already reported before the Additional Director General of Police (Personnel), Rajasthan, Jaipur, and as per Annexure-9 dated 27.10.2025, had joined the said office. 6. Pursuant thereto, he was assigned duty to render his services during the Pushkar Mela at Pushkar, District Ajmer, under the control and supervision of the Police Headquarters, Jaipur, and continues to discharge his duties there till date. 7. Despite the subsistence of the interim protection granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025, the stay order has apparently been rendered inconsequential in its effect, as the petitioner continues to remain under the administrative and functional control of the Police Headquarters, Jaipur, instead of being restored to his previous posting at Bhopalgarh, which would have been the natural consequence of honoring the stay order. 8. Subsequently, by order dated 01.11.2025 (Annexure-13), wherein the petitioner’s name appears at Serial No.50, he has been shown as transferred from “Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural” to “Mewar Bhil Core, Banswara”. The said recital erroneously records the petitioner’s “from place” as Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural, whereas, as per the respondents’ own showing, the petitioner’s present posting and working control lie with the Police Headquarters, Jaipur. Thus, the mention of “Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural” as the existing station in the transfer order dated 01.11.2025 is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the factual and administrative position obtaining on record. 9. Thus, the mention of “Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural” as the existing station in the transfer order dated 01.11.2025 is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the factual and administrative position obtaining on record. 9. Thus ,the plea of the petitioner that his present deployment is with the Police Headquarters, Jaipur, where he continues to work under the direct control of the Director General of Police, and that the description of his existing posting as “Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh” in Annexure-13 dated 01.11.2025 is merely perfunctory and incorrect, appears to carry substantial force. 10. Shri B.L. Bhati, learned AAG, is directed to satisfy this Court as to how the petitioner’s present posting can be shown as Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, when admittedly he had been relieved from that post on 24.10.2025 and has since been functioning under the Police Headquarters, Jaipur. 11. List the matter on 12.11.2025. 12. Till the next date, the effect and operation of the order dated 01.11.2025 (Annexure-13) shall remain stayed qua the interest of the petitioner.” 13. This Court is conscious that transfer is primarily an administrative function falling within the domain of the competent authority, guided by considerations of administrative exigency and subject-matter expertise, and ordinarily the Court does not interfere with such decisions. However, the rule of law and requirements of administrative propriety constitute overriding considerations. The contours of judicial review in matters of transfer are narrow yet well- defined. As consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court, including in Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa , 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 , a transfer being an incident of service, is ordinarily immune from judicial scrutiny unless shown to be vitiated by mala fides, actuated by extraneous considerations, founded on infraction of statutory or administrative norms, or demonstrative of patent arbitrariness. Courts intervene not to question administrative wisdom but to prevent abuse of power and ensure fairness, legality, and adherence to prescribed norms. The jurisprudence on the subject, as also discussed in contemporary analyses, underscores that judicial review becomes imperative where the transfer order is passed in disregard of binding judicial directions, without application of mind to material facts, or in colourable exercise of power. The jurisprudence on the subject, as also discussed in contemporary analyses, underscores that judicial review becomes imperative where the transfer order is passed in disregard of binding judicial directions, without application of mind to material facts, or in colourable exercise of power. The present interference is, therefore, not with the administrative wisdom underlying the transfer, but with the manner in which the respondents acted in disregard of the subsisting judicial order dated 29.10.2025, and in issuing subsequent orders without due application of mind as to the petitioner’s actual posting status. 14. This Court is constrained to note that such practices not only display administrative arbitrariness but also create uncertainty in the functioning of field officers. Orders pertaining to transfers and postings, especially of officers engaged in policing and public order, cannot be issued in such a casual or precipitous manner. The authority issuing such orders must act with due deliberation, sensitivity, and in strict adherence to law. The conduct of the respondents, in the present case, demonstrates the contrary. 15. In view of the above analysis, this Court finds that the APO order dated 21.10.2025, the relieving order dated 24.10.2025, and the transfer order dated 01.11.2025 are unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside to the extent it concerns the petitioner, whose name is on Sr. No. 50. 16. Consequently, the instant writ petitions are disposed of and it is ordered that the impugned order dated 21.10.2025, 24.10.2025, and 01.11.2025 are set aside to the extent it concerns the petitioner. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue at the post of Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, where he was working prior to the issuance of the impugned orders. It is, however, made clear that in case administrative exigency so requires, the competent authority shall be at liberty to pass a fresh transfer order strictly in accordance with law, rules, and established principles governing transfers. Nothing in this order shall preclude the respondents from exercising such lawful authority in future. 17. With respect to Respondent No.5, Shri Nemichand, it is noted that he stands transferred from Ajmer to District Jodhpur Rural vide order dated 01.11.2025 at Sr. No. 49 of the order impugned and definitely he would be in a dilemma where to go if the petitioner doesn’t leave his place of posting. Such an officer cannot be kept in a state of administrative limbo or oscillation. No. 49 of the order impugned and definitely he would be in a dilemma where to go if the petitioner doesn’t leave his place of posting. Such an officer cannot be kept in a state of administrative limbo or oscillation. The respondents shall, therefore, ensure that the relieving of Shri Nemichand and the finalisation of his place of posting are completed, and appropriate fresh order to that effect is issued forthwith. The administrative machinery is expected to function with clarity, coherence, and promptness, and such situations of uncertainty must be avoided. 18. Stay petitions and all pending applications (if any) are disposed of.