RAM ACHAL MISRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Achal Misra, Radio Inspector, has directed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by his order of transfer to Kanpur. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, who had been directed to obtain instructions.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner, who was posted at Rai Bareli had sought for his transfer to Lucknow on his own and the authorities, for reasons best known to them, had transferred him to Lucknow. No sooner he joined at Lucknow, within a span of ten days, the petitioner was served with an order of transfer to Kanpur. He made a representation but that too has been rejected. The learned counsel for the State has tried to justify the order on the ground of various rules and regulations. In our opinion, rules and regulations are not much of application so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. In fact, the State should have placed the relevant material before the Court in order to show that the order to transfer was not made on mala fide grounds. It is not necessary that factual allegations of mala fide ought to have been asserted against any officer but they can well be inferred from attending circumstances. The petitioner had forgone his travelling allowance in opting his posting at Lucknow. Naturally on the verge of his retirement Lucknow being the home -town of the petitioner he had opted for his posting over here. There are Government directions also to this effect that when a person is to attain retirement, as far as possible the authorities will post him at his home -town or near his home -town so as to enable him to make necessary arrangements when he retires from service. The authorities in utter violation of the executive directions and for some ulterior motive which cannot be spelt out in this order, transferred the petitioner to Kanpur. If the transfer order smacks of mala fide the court can interfere and this is one of those fit cases where the Court may exercise its jurisdiction in order to set at rest any mala fide order. Issue a writ of certiorari to cancel the order of transfer contained in Annexure -8 dated 2.7.1986 and we direct that the authorities will make suitable arrangement for posting of the petitioner according to his qualification. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. However, since no counter affidavit has been filed and only on the basis of instructions the case has been argued, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.