IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.131 of 2009 DR.SUNIL KUMAR CHANDRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar @Manu, Advocate For the State: Mr. N.K. Singh, SC VI Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh Mr. Yogendra Kr. Singh, AC to SC VI 6 24/8/2009 Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.K.Singh, counsel for the respondents. The present appellant has challenged the order of transfer mainly on two grounds that is to say his place of transfer is far away from the original place of posting where his wife is working as a doctor on contract basis and secondly transfer had taken place in the month of September and not in the month of June as transfer is generally made in the month of June. It is further submitted that he had not completed five years at one place. By virtue of an interim order of stay passed by the learned single judge and subsequently after disposal of the writ petition by the Division Bench, the present appellant has continued at the original place of posting 2 and now there is no dispute that the petitioner has completed 5 years of service at the original place of posting. In these circumstances, we do not think it would be appropriate for the appellate court to interfere with the order passed by the single judge, particularly, in matters relating to transfer. Law is well settled that ordinarily the court should not interfere in matters relating to transfer unless clear malafide is established or unless the transfer order suffers from any statutory prohibition. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single judge and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the place of transfer is far away from the place where his wife is working on contract basis. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the present appeal, it will be open for the present appellant to make a representation before the Government which will be considered and disposed of on its own merit. It is made clear that this court is not expressing any opinion on the 3 merits of the case. It is further made clear that no such representation should be entertained unless and until the present appellant joins at the present place of posting. Neyaz/ (P.K.Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)