1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6540/2009 Rakesh Rohil vs LIC & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 10.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA. Mr. PS Bhati, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that petitioner is an employee of the LIC. He made a criminal complaint against the various officers of the LIC under Section 409, 420, 427, 464, 466, 468, 471, 474, 119, 201, 202, 203, 204, 212, 217, 218 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar on 12.1.2009. Therefore, the administration of the LIC became annoyed and the petitioner who was promoted by office order dated 4.2.2009 was not given any information about his promotion and petitioner came to know about that promotion only when he submitted application under the Right to Information Act to victimise the petitioner, the petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 1st July, 2009. It is submitted that the transfer order is malafide, which is clear from the above facts. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. 2 The contention of the petitioner that because of the malafides only, the petitioner has been transferred and in support of it, it is stated that he submitted criminal complaint. The criminal complaint was submitted in the month of Jan., 2009 and the petitioner has been transferred in the month of July, 2009, after 6 months from that complaint. The contention of the petitioner that he was not informed about the promotion order and that is second instance of the malafides of the respondent. I do not find from the facts that these two instances can be considered to be reason for transfer and any employee who submitted complaint cannot claim any right to hold the post and challenge the order of transfer on the ground that since the employee has made complaint, therefore, he was transferred. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition against the transfer order because the transfer is an exigency of service. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-