1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

          "(1) That, the order annexure P/1 dated 16-06-2026 passed by the respondent no. 2, may kindly quashed. (II) That, the respondent kindly directed to permit the petitioner on the present place of posting. (III) That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 16.06.2026, the petitioner has been transferred from Tehsil Banmore to Tehsil Joura. It is further submitted that the petitioner is already working as an Enumerator for Census 2027 and vide order dated 17.04.2026, the petitioner has been assigned the duty of the aforesaid post till February, 2027. It is further submitted that as per the circular issued by the GAD, the census work is of utmost importance and therefore, it was directed that the persons involved therein shall not be disturbed till February, 2027. It is further submitted that without considering the aforesaid circular dated 17.04.2026, the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order. However, learned counsel for petitioner makes a limited prayer that if respondents are directed to decide the representation of petitioner in a time bound manner, then his grievance would be redressed, mentioning that a similar case has been considered by this Court in the case of Natthu Singh Yadav Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.P. No.31488/2024) vide order dated 15.10.2024.

3. Per contra , learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent/State opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner by supporting the impugned transfer order, however, he has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner to decide the representation in accordance with law.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Transfer is an incident of service and no one, much less petitioner, has any vested right to be posted at a particular place of posting. It is well settled that the employer is the best judge to organize its workforce and a transfer order cannot be subjected to judicial review unless and until the same is found to be influenced by mala fide or arbitrary exercise of powers which the petitioner fails to do so. The concept of equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has no application to the cases of transfers.

6. However, in the present case, by the impugned order dated 16.06.2026, petitioner has been transferred from Tehsil Bamore to Tehsil Joura. The petitioner is already working as an Enumerator for Census 2027 and vide order dated 17.04.2026, has been assigned the duty of the aforesaid post till February, 2027. As per the circular issued by the GAD, census work is of utmost importance and therefore, it was directed that the persons involved therein shall not be disturbed till February, 2027. Without considering the aforesaid circular dated 17.04.2026, the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order. Looking to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State, this petition is disposed of in the following manner:

          (i) Petitioner shall submit a fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the respondent/competent authority within a period of 7 days from today;

          (ii) In turn, the respondent/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the said representation preferred by petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order on the basis of Transfer Policy dated 22.05.2026 within a period of three week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; and

          (iii) Till decision by the respondent/competent authority is taken, the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) so far as it relates to petitioner shall remain stayed, no coercive action shall be taken against him and respondents are directed to continue petitioner at the present place of posting i.e. Patwari Bamore.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.