(Annexure-PI2), 25—3—20E)8\ (Annexure-PH) & 31-3-2098 addressed i0 the Senior Superintendent 0f Poiice, Biiaspur, the respondent No.2 has paSSéd the impugned order with malite at ihe instance of the respendents; No.3 & 4‘ Shri Pa€ei further $1Jbmits that the order dated 11-4-2008 relieving the peiiiiionef immediatew dearly indinaias that the impugned arder was pa3serj with malice. in support ,of hi$ cnniéniinn, the petitianer ha3 iiied capies of cnmpiainis iodgéd befaré ihé connazrned Police au’ihe‘r? ties. 3) Shi'i Dee, iearneci ccunsei appearing for ihe responrients, per contra;- wouic! submit that the transfer of i'ne petiiioner was not made on ancount of any recommendation or at the instance of rhe respondents No.3 & 4, who are eubordinate to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 had paesed ihe transfer order pursuant to the requirement eated 19-3—2008 {Annexure-RH) from CMFDI (HQ). The altegeo incidence had taken piace after the requirement. Thus, there is no eonnection with the police oompiaint against the respondents No.3 & 4 or any action against the petitioner thereon, 4) i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parttes; perused the pleatttngs and the document‘a appentteot thereto. The altegation of mate tide is based on three complaints made by the son of the petitioner against the respondents No3 & 4, Aooording to the teamed aouhset for the petitioner, the investigation is going on The respondents No.3 8: 4, who are subordinate to the respondeht No.2, who has passed the order, may- not have exercised theirihftuenoe over him, ae it is aiso not proved by any dooumeht or any other circumstances. Thus, the atlegation of meta fide is not proved by strong & cogent reasons; The petitioner has not challenged the transfer order on a’hy other permissible grounds eg. lack of oornpetenoe of the officer passing the transfer orcier or infraction of any statutory rules and regulations. From perusal of the letter dated t9-3—2G98 (Annexure-R/t) it appears that the transfer order was passed on account of the administrative exigenoy. 5) tt is weii settted prinatple of law that transfer is an tneidenoe of sentioe and it is for the empioyer to decide as to where a reenter/tier officerr‘ emptoyee be posted, hashing in View outotie tnterest as welt as administrative exigenoy. This Gourt has timited jurisdiotion to interfere with the trensfer matter and exoeot in the oases of proved reels Ede hon—oompe‘tenoe of authority passing the transfer order arid not heing in - conformity with the rtries and reguiations. \ ‘ 6) The courts or iiribunals, which are appellate authmities should refrain from considering the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerneci. (3% State of UP. and others vs. Gehardhan Lai‘. 7) The Han’bie $rrpreme Caurt in the marrer of Mohd. Masacmi Ahmad v5. State of UP. and others2 $ummed up the scope of inferference in eaxarcise (3f ifs discrerianary urisdicrion under Arride 226 of the Cansifiiution of lndia, as under : “7. The scope 0f judiciai raview of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution 0f india has been Settled by Supreme Ccurt in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, National Hydroelecfn‘c Power Germ. Lid. v. Shri Bhagwan, Si‘afe Bank of indie v. Anjan Sanyal. Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. Stare of U.P. and Onkar Nath Tiwan‘ v. Chief Engineer, Minor irringatrbn Depit hae held that the principle of iaw iaid down in the aforesaid decisions i5 that an order of tranefer is a part of the eervioe conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of iaw in exercise of its oisoretionary jurisdiotion under Article 226 uniese the court finds rhat either the order is maia hoe or that the eeniioe rules prohihif such transfer, or-that the authorities who issued the orders, were not oompetent re pass the orders. r; 8) Applying rhe weil settled principles of law laid down by theSupreme Couri in various cases to the facts of-the case on hand, wherein the male tide alleged by the petitioner has not been proved and there is no Challenge to fhe impugned transfer order on the ground, of infraction of rules or non-oompetenoe of the officer passing the transfer order. Thus, this petition does not warrant any interferenoe by this Court. This writ petition being devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed Si Consequentiy, pending applicafions, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i i (2094) 11 SCC 402 2 (2007) a soc 15o Gown ‘ 1 j