NARPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a Ranger Gr. I, which is a Gazetted post. He was earlier working at Phalodi. However, on account of his family circumstances, he made a request that he be transferred somewhere near Bikaner and, therefore, vide order Ex. I dated 13. 9. 1989, he was transferred to Bajju in District Bikaner. It is alleged that in pursuance of Order Ex. I, the petitioner joined his duties at Bajju an 26. 9. 1989 and he is still working there. However, an order Ex. 4 dated 29. 9. 1989 came to be passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jaipur whereby the order Ex. I dated 13. 9. 1989 was cancelled. Actually, vide Order Ex. I dated 13. 9. 1989, Shri Narpatsingh Rajpurohit, the petitioner in this case, was posted as Forest Ranger at Bajju and Shri Mahaveer Prasad Bhati, who was working on that post was put under awaiting orders.

(3.) IT was contended by Mr. M. L. Kala, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in order to accommodate Shri Mahaveer Prasad Bhati, his transfer order Ex. I was cancelled vide order Ex. 4 and, therefore, it should be construed to be the malafide on the part of the respondents. In this respect, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Kerala High Court in P. Damoda-ran v. State of Kerala (2 ). I have gone through this ruling. IT does not lay down the law in the precise terms in which it has been contended by Mr. M. L. Kala, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, it lays down that malafide does not necessarily mean dishonesty or bad faith. In the legal sense, it mean a fraud on power. In this ruling, so many situations have been described which may amount to fraud on power.