IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13349 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 30, 2010 Dr. Ravinder Verma .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order of transfer dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-6) as also order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-9) vide which payment of house rent allowance of the petitioner has been stopped. 2. Learned counsel, at the outset, contends that petitioner would like to file a separate petition in challenge to Order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-9) and therefore, this CWP No.13349 of 2010 [2] petition be treated only in challenge to Order dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure P-6). 3. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn in challenge to Order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-9) with liberty to the petitioner to file a separate petition in that regard. 4. In the context of transfer of the petitioner who was serving as Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Noor Mahal, District Jalandhar, to Faridkot, learned counsel contends that on account of media trial, the petitioner has been transferred out after a brief stay in Noor Mahal, Jalandhar. 5. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Para 10 to 12 of the petition indicate that there was some issue in the medical facility where the petitioner was serving. The Medical Officer in Emergency was not found present whereupon a news item appeared in Hindustan Times. The petitioner was serving as Senior Medical Officer and therefore it seems that he was required to ensure presence of a doctor on Emergency duty. 7. Be that as it may, it seems that the respondents have ordered transfer of the petitioner in view of administrative exigency. CWP No.13349 of 2010 [3] Executive is the best authority to consider administrative exigency as it has the relevant information, inputs and data to consider whether administratively it would be appropriate to transfer a person or not. Prima facie, arbitrary exercise of power or malafide exercise of power is not made out. Admittedly, there has been no change in service conditions of the petitioner as the petitioner is serving on a transferable post. 8. No ground for interference in order of transfer is made out. 9. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 30, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?