[2025:RJ-JD:4231] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1477/2025 Bhoj Raj S/o Shri Nanu Ram Meghwal, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Near Delhi Gate, Opposite Sbbj Bank, Parbatsar, District Nagaur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Additional Commissioner Cum Deputy Secretary (Ii), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, Rajasthan. 4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayati Samiti Parbatsar, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. 5. Akshayraj Goud, Progress Extension Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh (Rajsamand). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MK Dudy. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bharti for Mr. IR Choudhary, AAG. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order (Oral) 22/01/2025 1. Petitioner, working as Progress Extension Officer, herein seeks quashing of an order dated 15.01.2025 (Annex.-1), vide which he has been transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Parbatsar (Nagaur) to Panchayat Samiti Nagaur, District Nagaur. 2. Transfer being matter of administrative exigency, this Court generally refrains to interfere and treads cautiously, unless it is a [2025:RJ-JD:4231] (2 of 2) [CW-1477/2025] case of extreme hardship. The case in hand does not seem to be such so as to deserve any indulgence. Moreover, to transfer or not to transfer an official, is sole discretion of the employer based on the administrative exigencies. Rather, transfer is an integral part of service conditions of a government employee and the same arise out of the administrative exigencies. Such orders are not to be treated as punishment or a promotion. This Court, therefore, refrains to interfere in the same unless it is a case of extreme hardship arising out of the mitigating circumstances depending upon every individual case. 3. Case in hand does not seem to be such that the petitioner is suffering any extreme hardship of the nature warranting interference by this Court. However, it transpires that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer in past, as is borne out from the contents of the petition, which is duly supported with affidavit. 4. In the premise, writ petition is disposed of with expectation from the competent authority that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the current place, as per the applicable transfer policy, where he has been transferred without dislocating him again. Frequent transfers result in not only in additional burden on the public exchequer, but also in disruption of family life of the official. 5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ARUN MONGA),J 72-/Jitender/DhananjayS/- Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.