CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13700 OF 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 03, 2009 Dr.Ram Niwas Yadav .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. A Veterinary Surgeon transferred to Rewari has filed this writ petition to impugn the order, cancelling his posting to Rewari by alleging that this has been done on account of political influence of respondent No.3, the Irrigation Minister, to retain respondent No.4 at Rewari. Respondent No.4 is statedly serving at Rewari for 3 years and 7 months, which, as per the petitioner, is against the policy instructions. On 16.11.2005, he was again transferred to Rewari as SDO (AH). He was promoted as Deputy Director, State Cattle CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13700 OF 2009 : 2 : Breeding Project, Hisar, and was transferred to Hisar on 5.6.2007. It is alleged that on account of his political connection with respondent No.3, he was transferred to Rewari within a period of two months on 1.8.2007. The petitioner, who is also working as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, was transferred from Kaithal to Rewari on 26.8.2009 in place of respondent No.4. His is a couple case as his wife is serving in the Education Department at Rewari. On 27.8.2009, the petitioner joined at Rewari. On 28.8.2009, this transfer order of the petitioner was cancelled and in his place, respondent No.4 again adjusted at Rewari on the asking of OSD to Chief Minister. A note in this regard is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7 and it reads as under:- “CM has desired that the transfer orders of Dr.O.P.Yadav, Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Deptt., Rewari to Kaithal may be cancelled.” The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition to challenge the order cancelling his transfer, alleging malafide against respondent No.3 and being on account of political interference. In support of his stand, the petitioner has referred to the judgments in the cases of Kulwant Kaur Vs. Ch.Suraj Bhan & others, 1991 (1) RSJ 39, Smt.Sanotash Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1999 (3) RSJ 253, R.K.MIttal Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2004 (4) RSJ 256 and Kamaljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others , 1999 (3) RSJ 90. Apparently, political influence is at play in matters of these transfers and cancellations. Whether this is done for an administrative reason to keep respondent No.4 at Rewari or due to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13700 OF 2009 : 3 : his close links with respondent No.3 can not be clearly made out. It is not case set up by the petitioner that respondent No.3 has any ill will against him. As per the averment, respondent No.4 is related to respondent No.3. The transfer, however, has been cancelled as per the dictates on behalf of Chief Minister. The petitioner apparently is disturbed as his chance to be with his wife is gone. Perhaps because of this he had joined at Rewari hurriedly within a day. The reason for cancellation of this transfer is not connected with any bias or malafide against the petitioner. At best, it is to keep respondent No.4 at Rewari. It may be due to an administrative requirement. May be, it is to favour respondent No.4 but it is not attributed to any bias against the petitioner. There is no malafide either alleged or made out on the part of respondent No.3 against the petitioner for which this transfer was cancelled. Courts should restrain from interfering in administrative matters like transfers except in those rare cases where malafide or ulterior motives are clearly established. The petitioner has not made any allegation against the Chief Minister or respondent No.3 for being biased against him. The petitioner has only alleged that his transfer has been cancelled at the instance of respondent No.3 to keep respondent No.4 at Rewari. That in itself is no proof of bias or malafide on the part of respondent No.3 against the petitioner. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner would not be relevant. Kulwant Kaur's case (supra) was a case where transfer was challenged on account of malafides levelled against Revenue Minister. The transfer order was accordingly cancelled. Similarly in the case of Smt.Santosh Sharma (supra), the allegation CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13700 OF 2009 : 4 : of malafides against the Minister for her transfer was made. In the said case, in addition it was noticed that the husband of the petitioner was transferred to a place where there was neither a post nor a student in the College, where he could teach Military Science. R.K.Mittal's case (supra) was a case of transfer after issuance of a Model Code of Conduct. It was observed that State Government was not competent to issue transfer order without prior clearance of the Election Commission. This, if pressed may effect the very transfer of the petitioner, which is cancelled. That was not a case of cancellation of any transfer. The facts in the case of Kamaljit Singh (supra) would also not apply to a situation at hand as there the transfer was from Bank to Bank after getting approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Society but the transfer order was cancelled without approval from the Registrar. It was so observed that there were certain rights accruing to the petitioner. In the present case, upon transfer to Rewari, the petitioner certainly has not come to acquire any right for which he was required to be served with a notice. Except for expressing dismay at the manner in which the transfers are being ordered and managed using political influence, this Court would wish to refrain from invoking jurisdiction in such like administrative matters, where infringements of rights as such may not be involved. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 03, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE