IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13431 of 2008 DR.ARUN KR.SHARMA @DR.A.K.SHARMA Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Dr. S.P.Singh For the respondents : Shri Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate Mr. G.K.Agrawal --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 8th September, 2008 Two fold contention has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner: (One) That the transfer order suffers from extraneous reasons and , thus, malafide; however, without calling any written response from the respondents, the original application came to be dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was not permissible. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. K. SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, (1994) 6 SCC 98, and (two) that the transfer guidelines framed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan with effect from 14th March, 2006, provide for transfer on the ground of administrative exigencies but in the present case, the order of transfer has been issued in public interest, which is not in conformity with the guidelines. 2. In so far as the first contention is concerned, the 2 Tribunal has recorded the finding that there is no allegation of any malafide against the transferring authority. The Tribunal observed that plea of malafide has not only to be pleaded but specifically proved by adducing cogent evidence; the mere allegation and suspicion would not be sufficient. 3. Nothing specific has been shown to us by the counsel for the petitioner from the record that there was specific plea of malafide against the transferring authority and the material in support thereof. In this view of the matter, in our view, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to call for a written response from the respondents. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Singh, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not apply at all. 4. With regard to the second submission of the counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to say, that para 8 (iv) of transfer guidelines provides for transfer on administrative exigencies. Surely, the transfer in public interest is covered by para 8 (iv). 5. Consideration of the matter by the tribunal does not suffer from legal infirmity. 6. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/ 3