Om Prakash, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 25-3-1991 (Annexure I to the writ petition), the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed at the behest of some Vidhayak and the Minister and not by the authorities considering the administrative exigency. Normally, courts do not. interfere in transfer matters, as transfers are incidence of service and no employee has got a right to stay at particular place. However, transfer can be made by the competent authority in the public interest considering the exigencies oi service. The opening sentence of the impugned order shows that the impugned transfer order was passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, respondent No. 1, following the order of the Education Minister, who was approached by one Sri Ram Asrey Agnihotri, Vidhayak.
(2.) It is regretted that a Minister should pass a transfer order which function is to be discharged by the competent authority in the Department. If any thing adverse to the conduct of the incumbent comes to the knowledge of a Vidhayak or some other public representative, then he may forward it to the competent authority requesting him to consider the same and do the needful in the matter, but interference by Directing transfer straightway is not compatible to the principles of rules of law, by which a country having democratic set up is to be governed. All the persons in position should know that this is not the Government of the men howsoever high position they may occupy but is the Government of laws.
(3.) Since the impugned transfer order is passed at the behest of the Vidhayak and the Education Minister, as is evident from the impugned order, on account of which no counter-affidavit is needed, the impugned order has got to be quashed.;