IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.193 of 2011 Ramashish Rajak son of Late Parmeshwar Rajak, Resident of village Nagdah, P.S.Mufassil, District Begusarai, Appellant, Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Begusarai 3.The Joint Secretary-cum-Director, Deshi Chikitsa, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 4. The Principal, Government Ayodhya Shiv Kumari Ayurvedic College, Begusarai, District- Begusarai 5.Dr. Bhudeo Singh, son of Niranjan Singh at present posted at Government Ayodhya Shiv Kumari Ayurvedic Collect, Begusarai, District- Begusarai.--Respondents. 4. 28.3.2011. Reg: I.A.No.817 of 2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the reasons assigned in the limitation petition, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 7.12.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.2280 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the same in which the order of transfer of the appellant from Begusarai to Patna was questioned. 2 It was contended before us that the writ petitioner has alleged malafide in the recommendation of the Principal, Government Ayodhya Shiv Kumari Ayurvedic College, Begusarai with regard to transfer of the writ petitioner from Patna to Begusarai, which was not considered by the Single Judge and further, counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has been victimised for the reasons that he had lodged a complaint against the Principal of the College as he had refused to accept the plastic skeleton in spite of the order of the superior authority, and as such the learned Single Judge has committed error in dismissing the writ petition. Having heard counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner was not obeying the order of his superior authority and avoiding the transfer order without disclosing any reason and as the authority has assigned the reasons in rejecting his representation, the transfer 3 order cannot be interfered with by this court. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. ahk (T.Meena Kumari, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)