Order :

1. Petitioner herein seeks quashing of two orders, i.e. dated 22.02.2024 (Annex.3), vide which, he has been transferred from Bordar Home Guard, Sriganganagar to Home Defence Training Institute, Jodhpur and dated 23.02.2024 (Annex.4), vide which, he was relieved.

2. During the pendency of writ proceedings, a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 15.03.2024 staying the implementation of the transfer order. Same being apposite is reproduced hereinbelow:

“1. While accepting that the petitioner has been relieved on 23.02.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned transfer order dated 22.02.2024 on the following three grounds :-

(i). That while transferring the respondent No.4 on 20.02.2024 at Border Security Force (BSF), Sri Ganganagar, the post had been shown as vacant, whereas as on 20.02.2024, the petitioner was working on the said place.

(ii). That the respondent No.4 is a Deputy Commandant but he has been posted by order dated 20.02.2024 as Battalion Commandant.

(iii). Petitioner’s transfer within a period of 13 months from his posting at Sri Ganganagar on 15.01.2023 is contrary to the transfer policy dated 01.08.2007, in asmuch as no transfer can be effected before completion of two years at a place of posting.

2. Mr. Godara, learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to file reply.

3. In view of the submissions noted above this Court deems it appropriate to stay the effect and operation of order dated 22.02.2024 qua the petitioner, though he has been relieved.

4. Hence, issue notice to the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

5. Notice be served to Additional Advocate General concerned.

6. List this case on 15th April, 2024.

7. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure-3) qua the petitioner so also relieving order dated 23.02.2024 shall remain stayed.”

3. Aforesaid stay order continues to subsist in favor of the petitioner till date.

4. Transfers are a standard and integral aspect of government employment conditions. Employees do not possess an inherent right to demand continuation of their service at a specific location. 5. This Court ordinarily refrains from intervening in transfer matters, acknowledging administrative needs for employees to fulfill their duties at assigned locations.

6. In the instant case, given the duration of the interim protection granted by this court, its utility appears to have waned over time.

7. Be that as it may, the interim order is made absolute, but with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders in future, if necessary due to administrative exigency.

8. In the parting, it is made clear that granting liberty to pass fresh orders is not to be construed as a direction of this Court to necessarily pass fresh orders in case there is no such requirement otherwise.

9. Disposed of as above.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.