RAJIV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 21.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in WRIT Petition No.21099 of 2009, has preferred this special appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) is employed as Lekhpal and by the impugned order dated 28.2.2009, he has been transferred from Tehsil Koil to Tehsil Atrauli. He challenged the aforesaid order, inter alia, contending that the transfer is mala fide and has been made at the instance of a Member of Legislative Council. The aforesaid submission did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and he observed that there is no material on record to prove the mala fide. In the present appeal, the petitioner has placed on record the letter dated 20.2.2009 written by the Member of Legislative Council for transfer of the petitioner from Tehsil Koil to Tehsil Atrauli. It is contended by Mr. J.J. Muneer that the petitioner has been transferred at the instance of the Member of Legislative Council as he had given a report adverse to him. The letter of the Member of Legislative Council is on record, which, inter alia, states that during his visit to Tehsil Koil complaints were made against the petitioner and on that account a request was made to the District Magistrate to transfer the petitioner. We are of the opinion that as a public representative nothing prevents a Member of Legislative Council to bring into notice of the concerned authority the general complaints of the villagers about the conduct of an employee of the State and request for his transfer. Mr. Muneer, then submits that the transfer has been effected at the dictate of the employer. Although such a pleading has been made but there is nothing on record to substantiate the same. The transfer is an incidence of service and in the absence of any mala fide, the order of transfer is not interfered by this Court. Following the aforesaid principle, the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of transfer. We do not find any error in the same. The appeal stands dismissed.