1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 11.10.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned transfer order dated 30.9.2004 (Annexure 1) passed by the respondent No. 2 Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur by which the petitioner was transferred from Bhopalgarh District Jodhpur to Raniwada District Jalore on ground of his consent, be quashed and set aside.

2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :

The petitioner is substantively working on the post of LDC under the control of Tehsildar, Bhopalgarh Distt. Jodhpur.
The case of the petitioner is that though the respondent No. 2 Divisional Commissioner has power to transfer the petitioner, but a bare perusal of impugned transfer order Annexure 1 dated 30.9.2004 would reveal that the petitioner was transferred because he himself sought his transfer. According to the petitioner, he had never given his consent as contained in the impugned transfer order Annexure 1 and therefore, the said transfer order Annexure 1 is bad in law and it should be set aside as it was based on insertion of false statement.A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent and their case is that through impugned transfer order Annexure 1, the petitioner was transferred from Bhopalgarh to Raniwada on ground of administrative exigencies. However, due to inadvertence, the word "swecha se" was mentioned in column No. 7 of the impugned transfer order Annexure 1 and since it was a bonafide mistake, therefore, from this point of view, the impugned transfer order Annexure 1 should not be quashed.It has been further submitted by the respondents that in pursuance of the impugned transfer order Annexure 1, the petitioner had been relieved from his office on 8.10.2004. Furthermore, a complaint was filed by the villagers against the petitioner and a copy of which is marked as Annexure R/1 and because of that complaint, he was transferred and apart from this, the petitioner was working at a particular place at Bhopalgarh for the last nine years and from this point of view also, if the petitioner was transferred on ground of administrative exigency, his transfer cannot be said to be mala fide. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned transfer order Annexure 1 and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record of the case.

4. There is no dispute on the point that through impugned transfer order Annexure 1 dated 30.9.2004, the petitioner has been transferred from Bhopalgarh to Raniwada and there is also no dispute on the point that in column No. 7 of the impugned transfer order Annexure 1, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was transferred because of his consent.

5. There is also no dispute on the point that the insertion of word "swecha- se" in column No. 7 of the impugned transfer order Annexure 1 has been made by the respondents inadvertently as in their reply they have admitted that this a bonafide mistake, but the transfer of the petitioner was made because of administrative exigencies.

6. There is also no dispute on the point that as per reply of the respondents. in pursuance of the impugned transfer order Annexure 1, the petitioner has been relieved on 8.10.2004.

7. There is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner was working at Bhopalgarh for the last nine years.

8. There is also no dispute on the point that a complaint Annexure R/1 was received by the competent authority against the petitioner.

9. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just mentioned above, if in the impugned transfer order Annexure 1 dated 30.9.2004, the word "swecha se" has been wrongly mentioned by the respondents, then the transfer order Annexure 1, which is said to be passed on admin