ORDER : MUNNURI LAXMAN, J. 1) With the consent of both parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing. All the above-mentioned writ petitions stand decided by this common order, as the issue involved is identical. 2) The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the transfer orders. 3) The grounds urged in the present writ petitions are that the transfers cannot be effected in the middle of the academic session and that the petitioners’ family members are suffering from various serious ailments. Additionally, it is contended that a Coordinate Bench of this Court at the Jaipur Bench, in the case of Hargovind Meena vs. Secretary, School Education Department & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17757/2025], vide order dated 24.11.2025, deprecated the practice of effecting transfers in the middle of the academic session. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1124/2026 ( Maina Garhwal vs. State of Rajasthan ) , vide order dated 30.01.2026, a Coordinate Bench of this Court at the Jaipur Bench granted interim orders staying the operation of the transfers on the ground that they were made in the middle of the academic session, and the petitioners seek parity with the said order. 5) It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is no transfer policy in place and that the transfers were effected before the completion of the academic session. Further, in the case of Hargovind Meena (cited supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur deprecated transfers made in the middle of the academic session, while following the judgment rendered in the case of Maina Garhwal (cited supra), and granted interim orders staying the transfers. Therefore, the petitioners seek similar treatment by way of grant of interim relief. 6) In support of their contentions, the learned counsels for the petitioners also relied upon the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chena Ram Chaudhary Vs. State of Raj. & Ors , [D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1556/2025], decided on 18.12.2025, the decision of Apex Court in the case of Shlpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors , [D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1556/2025], decided on 18.12.2025, the decision of Apex Court in the case of Shlpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, the decision of this Court at Jaipur Bench rendered in the case of Hargvoind Meena (cited supra) and the interim orders granted by this Court in the case of Poonam Chand Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan , [D.B. Speical Appeal (Writ) No.1474/2025], decided on 26.11.2025. Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.L.Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 357, Pubi Lombi Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. , (2024) 12 Supreme Court cases 292. 11) The Apex Court, in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) (cited supra), has postulated the grounds on which Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked. Two grounds have been laid down, namely: (i) violation of any statutory provision; and (ii) where the order suffers from mala fides. 12) The Apex Court, in the case of Pubi Lombi (cited supra), after considering various judgments, has held that interference can be made only if the order suffers from mala fides, violates any statutory provision, or if the transfer is detrimental to the employee holding a transferable post. It was further clarified that whenever mala fides are alleged, the parties against whom mala fides are attributed must be made parties to the proceedings, and there must be specific pleadings in this regard. None of the present writ petitions contains specific allegations of mala fides, nor any parties against whom mala fides are attributed have been impleaded. It is nobody’s case that any statutory violation was committed while passing the transfer orders, and it is also nobody’s case that the transfers are detrimental to the employees holding transferable posts 13) This Court in a batch of writ petitions lead by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.18959/2025 (Sultan Singh Sahu Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) , decided by common order dated 16.10.2025, has referred various judgments of the Apex Court and the rules dealing with the transfer policy and the effect of any guideline and circular, and passed the following operative portion of the order:- “31. State of Raj. & Anr.) , decided by common order dated 16.10.2025, has referred various judgments of the Apex Court and the rules dealing with the transfer policy and the effect of any guideline and circular, and passed the following operative portion of the order:- “31. In the result, all these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:- (i) This Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders of transfer; (ii) The liberty is given given to the petitioners who are claiming preferential rights either under the executive instructions/transfer policy or who are retiring within two years or persons suffering from disability to make representations. Such representations shall be filed only after joining in the transferred post. Any such representations if filed, the same shall be considered within a month keeping in view the executive instructions/transfer policy vis-a-vis administrative needs. (iii) Other petitioners who are claiming various preferential rights under the above executive instructions/transfer policy are given liberty to make a representation in the upcoming general transfers, if any. If any such representations are made, the respondent-authorities shall consider the same according to the policy as well as administrative needs”. 14) In the case of Hargovind Meena (cited supra), including Maina Garhwal (cited supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court at the Jaipur Bench deprecated the practice of transferring an employee in the middle of an academic session. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not been able to bring to the notice of the Court any law laid down by the Apex Court that expands the scope of interference of a Constitutional Court in matters of transfer. In numerous writ petitions, the Apex Court has deprecated interference in transfer orders without due consideration of the circumstances under which such interference may be warranted. The petitioners have also relied upon various interim orders passed in other writ petitions by Division Benches as well as Single Benches; however, such orders are only interim in nature and were passed based on the specific facts of those cases. 15) In Maina Garhwal ’s case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench stayed the transfer orders of employees similarly situated to the petitioners. However, while considering similar writ petitions filed by other employees, such benefit was not extended to them. It is needless to say that interim orders cannot be treated as precedent. 15) In Maina Garhwal ’s case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench stayed the transfer orders of employees similarly situated to the petitioners. However, while considering similar writ petitions filed by other employees, such benefit was not extended to them. It is needless to say that interim orders cannot be treated as precedent. Where the law regarding the scope of interference in transfer matters is clear, this Court cannot expand the scope of judicial review to interfere with transfers which are made in the public interest and for administrative reasons. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to dispose of all the writ petitions in terms of the operative portions of the order passed in Sultan Singh Sahu (cited supra). 16) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while relying upon the case of Hargovind Meena (cited supra), strenuously contended that the transfer cannot be made in the midst of the academic session. The facts in that case pertained to a transfer made in September, which falls in the middle of the academic session. In the present cases, the transfers have been made at the fag end of the academic session, i.e., after the completion of teaching classes and practical examinations, just before the commencement of final examinations. If the transfers are stayed at this stage, it would adversely impact the conducting of the final examinations. Therefore, the ratio in the aforementioned case is not applicable to the present facts. 17) In the result, the present writ petitions are disposed of in the same terms as passed in Sultan Singh’s case, which is reiterated as under: (i) This Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders of transfer; (ii) The liberty is to the petitioners who are claiming preferential rights either under the executive instructions/transfer policy or who are retiring within two years or persons suffering with disability to make representations. Such representations shall be filed only after joining in the transferred post. Any such representations are filed, the same shall be considered within a month keeping in view the executive instructions/transfer policy vis-a-vis administrative needs. (iii) Other petitioners who are claiming various preferential rights under the above executive instructions/transfer policy are given liberty to make a representation in the upcoming general transfers, if any. Any such representations are filed, the same shall be considered within a month keeping in view the executive instructions/transfer policy vis-a-vis administrative needs. (iii) Other petitioners who are claiming various preferential rights under the above executive instructions/transfer policy are given liberty to make a representation in the upcoming general transfers, if any. If any such representations are made, the respondent-authorities shall consider the same according to the policy as well as administrative needs.