G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of Annexures 4 and 9 issued by the Secretary Khadi Gramodhyog Sanstha Sangh.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed on trial basis for 3 months to work in the Accounts Department of the Rajasthan Khadi Gramodhyog Sanstha Sangh (hereinafter to be referred as."the Sangh"). He was confirmed with effect from 1.4.1983 as Assistant Worker in the Accounts Department. He was given the charge of Accountant vide order dated 12.3.1985 on the retirement of Shri Kalyan Chand Maheshwari. According to the petitioner, there is only one post of Accountant in the services of the Sangh and that too in the Head Office at Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. The petitioner had discovered certain irregularities in the functioning of the Department and he brought these irregularities to the notice of the Secretary vide his letters dated 8.10.1986 and 45.1987. According to the petitioner, this annoyed functionaries of the Sangh and while he was on leave since 25.9.1987, he was served with an order dated 24.9.87/5.10.1987 seeking to transfer him from Jaipur to Bikaner to take charge of Accounts and Stock Register. The petitioner made representations on 10.10.1987 and 12.10.1987 against this order of transfer. He stated that the transfer was deliberate act of harassment. He applied for extension of leave. This application was not entertained and instead he was asked to report at Bikaner vide letter 26.10.1987. By another order dated 23/24.12.1987 all applications for extension of leave were rejected and at the same time false allegations were levelled against the petitioner that he was working elsewhere. He protested against the aforesaid order. According to the petitioner the respondent-Sangh falls within the definition of term 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India being an instrumentality of the State.
(3.) The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer on the ground that it had been passed by the Secretary of' the Satigh, who did not have the competence to pass such order because such action could only be taken by the Managing Committee under Rule 27(7). He further submits that the order of transfer is actuated with malice and is a clear act of vindictiveness.;