RAJESH BALIA.J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal for his transfer order, for his posting from Nagaur to Muradabad vide order dated 17.3.1999. The transfer was sought to be cancelled firstly on the medical ground on account of illness of the petitioner's wife and by alleging that the order is punitive and malafide and has been made in colourable exercise of power in order to accommodate Nahar Singh at Nagaur in place of petitioner. All these grounds did not find favour with the Tribunal and the Original Application was dismissed by the impugned order.
(2.) IT has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is malafide in as much as his transfer has been made to make room for Nahar Singh and that has turned out to be true because after the transfer of petitioner from Nagaur to Muradabad, Nahar Singh has been transferred at Nagaur. This contention fails to impress us in as much as the petitioner has been transferred alongwith his post and nobody has been or could otherwise have been accommodated in his place. Mr. Nahar Singh has admittedly not been placed on the post held by the petitioner by transferring said Nahar Singh vice him. He has been brought to Nagour on some other post. If somebody could be posted at Nagour without the existence of the post which was held by the petitioner, it could very well have been done even without transferring the petitioner from Nagaur. Therefore in our opinion, there is no linkage between the appointment of Nahar Singh at Nagaur with the transfer of the petitioner from Nagaur to Muradabad.
(3.) APART from that there is no allegation in the O.A. suggesting any personal ill -will or disposal towards the petitioner by any of the officers connected with the exercise of the power. In the absence of any Specific allegation about malafide there is no room to consider the question of transfer being malafide.;