- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the transfer order dated December 22, 1989 (Anx. 1) may be quashed and set aside.
(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. S. K. Gupta, learned counsel that the petitioner is working as Panchayat Extension Officer at Panchayat Samiti, Karauli, where he joind his duties in September, 1989 in pursuance of order dated August, 29, 1989 (Anx. 6), whereby, the petitioner was transferred from Bamanwas to Karauli, whereas respondent No. 4 was transferred from Karauli to Bamanwas. IT is further submitted that since the petitioner apprehended that order (Anx. 6) was likely to be cancelled, at the pressure of respondent No. 4, therefore, a writ petition bearing No. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11/90 was filed on October 17, 1989 praying that respondents No. 1 and 2 be restrained from transferring the petitioner from Karauli to any other place. However, Writ Petition No. 11/ 90 was withdrawn after filing of the present petition. IT is pointed out that the petitioner was transferred from Sambhar lake to Karauli on March 4, 1986 (Anx. 4-A) and respondent No. 4 was transferred from. Karauli to Sambhar lake. The petitioner, in obedience to the above order, joined at Karauli also, but, respondent No. 4 got the above order cancelled vide order dated March 17, 1986 (Anx. 2) and the petitioner was posted back at Sambhar lake. Again the petitioner was transferred from Sambhar lake to Bamanwas vide order dated May 14, 1966 (Anx. 3), where he joined on May 19,1986. However, the petitioner was again transferred from Bamanwas to Sapotra vide order dated September 7, 1988 (Anx. 4) and one Murarilal Kaushik was transferred from Bamanwas to Sapotra. The petitioner joined at Sapotra on September 7, 1988 but at the instance of Shri Kaushik, the order (Anx. 4) was cancelled by order dated December 16, 1988 (Anx. 5) and the petitioner again came to serve at Bamanwas. Now,| the petitioner was transferred Vide order dated August 29, 1989 (Anx. 6) from Bamanwas to Karauli and respondent No. 4 was, transferred from Karauli to Bamanwas which has again been cancelled at the instance of respondent No. 4 by impugned order (Anx. 1 ). It is. contended by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel that respondent No, 4; has been posted at Karauli since his appointment in the year, 1956 and whenever he has been transferred outside Karauli, he. has managed, to get the. transfer order cancelled. It is submitted that the petitioner has already joined in obedi-ence of the order (Anx. 6) at Karauli on September 8, 1989; It is also submitted that the petitioner is likely to retire in about 2-1/2 years time. It is submitted that it is evident from Anx. 1 that this has been issued only to accommodate respondent No. 4,| as no travelling allowance or any joining period has been allowed to respondent No. 4, which shows that this has been again managed by him. It is also contended that order (Annx. 1) can, by no way, be said to have been issued on account of administrative exigency or keeping in view the public policy, since respondent No. 4 has been always successfully getting his transfer, order cancelled whenever he was transferred outside Karauli. It is submitted by Mr. S. C. Gupta, learned counsel, that the transfer orders mentioned by the petitioner have been always made at his own request and since order (Anx. 1-A), by which the respondent No. 4 was transferred from Karauli to Sambhar Lake, was issued with malafide intention therefore, the same was rightly cancelled by order (Annx. 2 ). The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner, who belongs to Karauli, has been always trying either to get himself posted at Karauli or any place nearby Karauli and has been getting his transfers arranged with this end in view. The order (Anx. 6) was also issued with malafide intention, at the instance of the Minister concer-ned, as is evident from the endorsement in the said order and has been rightly cancelled vide Annx. 1 at the representation of the petitioner, who is also retiring soon. It is submitted that the petitioner has wrongly stated that he is a heart patient. The order dated 29-8-89 (Annx. 6) was issued at the instance of Shri Bherulal Bhardwaj, Minister for Panchayat Raj as is evident from the endorse-ment on the said order. This has evidently been managed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 4 remained posted at other places like Mahu, Karsai, Maholi, Makanpur, Atewa and Hindaun City and it cannot be said that the petitioner has remained at Karauli, even though, admittedly, he is posted at Karauli for the last 7-8 years. It is also submitted that it has been wrongly alleged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 ever met Shri Bherulal Bhardwaj to get his transfer recommended at Karauli. It is also submitted that son of respondent No. 4 is not General Secretary of Yuvak Congress, Sawaimadhopur, as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 is a heart patient and order (Annx. 1) has been issued keeping in view his performance and the fact that he has to retire in near future. I have heard both the parties and also gone* through the documents on record. It is evident that respondent No. 4, during his service career, has mostly remained at Karauli from 1956 and is at present posted at Karauli for the last 7-8 years. When enquired to give distances from Karauli to the places mentioned in para No. 2 of the reply, where respondent No. 4 had been transferred, the learned counsel was not in a position to do so. The general practice while issuing the transfer order is that when a transfer is effected at the request of the petitioner himself, no TA etc, is allowed to him. In none of the transfers, mentioned above, there is any such mention that the petitioner was not allowed to draw TA. This evidently shows that the above transfers were not made at the instance or request or representation made by the petitioner. Similarly, because in some orders, copies have been endorsed to the Private Secretary to the Minister-concerned Department, it cannot be inferred that the Minister had intervened at the instance of the petitioner. However, in transfer orders, entries of other persons, apart from the petitioner, should also find mention and on this account also, it cannot be said that whether the Minister of the concerned Department had intervened at the instance of the petitioner. The copy of Anx. 6 has not been endorsed to the Private Secretary to the Minister of concerned Department, which shows that the Minister had nothing to do with this transfer. Again, it is clear from the dates given above that the petitioner has been transferred quite frequently and the transfers were cancelled at the instance/intervention of one or the other persons. The petitioner, in the month of September, 1988, was transferred vide Anx. 4 from Bamanwas to Sapotra,, where he joined, but this order was cancelled in- the month of December vide Anx. 5. Again, petitioner was transferred vide Anx. 6 in the month of August, 1989 from Bamanwas to Karauli, which has now been cancelled again vide Anx. 1, even though the petitioner had already joined at Karauli. . It, therefore cannot be said that there existed any administrative exigency or interest or public policy was involved when the transfer of the petitioner made vide Anx. 6 from Bamanwas to Karauli was cancelled vide order (Anx. 1) dated December 22, 1989, whereby, the petitioner was sent back to Bamanwas and respondent No. 4 was brought back to Karauli. The Court is competent to interfere and substitute its own judgment when the order has been passed for other purposes and not for the sake of administrative exigencies or keeping in view the purpose of public interest. Such orders are passed with malafide intention in. colourable exercise of power and the State Government is expected to use the power of transfer reasonably and fairly and in the best interest of the administration, where it is exercised for extraneous or irrelevant reasons. Such exercise of power will be a case of perverse exercise and comes within-the purview of abuse of powers, which calls for intervention by. this Court.
(3.) IN the result, the impugned order dated December 22, 1989 (Anx. 1), by which the petitioner was transferred from Karuali to Bamanwas, is quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall continue to be posted at Karauli as per order dated August 29, 1989 (Anx. 6) The petition is allowed, with no order as to costs. .;