JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J.:—Leave granted. Heard the appellant in person and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. An order of transfer dated July 17, 1991 passed against the appellant transferring him to the post of Inspector of Exhibitions DAVP, Calcutta from the post of Inspector of Exhibitions DAVP, New Delhi is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. The appellant belongs to the Central Information Service since renamed as Indian Information Service. On December 17, 1990, the appellant was transferred to the post of Inspector of Exhibitions DAVP, Calcutta and prior to the impugned order of transfer he held the post of Inspector of Exhibitions DAVP, New Delhi. The appellant has challenged the order of transfer inter alia on the ground that such order of transfer was not passed for administrative reasons in the interest of public service but the same was passed mala fide in order to get rid of him because the respondent No. 2 had a personal score against the appellant and he manipulated the impugned order of transfer.

3. The appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order of transfer challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal. After going through the records of the case and considering rival contentions, the Tribunal was of the view that the allegation of malice and grudge alleged by the appellant against the respondents could not be substantiated. No statutory rule was violated by the impugned order of transfer. As such, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. The Tribunal has indicated that in case of personal difficulty, an employee can make representation to the authority concerned but simply on the score of personal hardship, an order of transfer relating to a transferable post cannot be held back. The Tribunal has also noted that the appellant did not make representation to the concerned department. He has, therefore, not exhausted the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules and on that score also the application made by the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to the special leave petition, it has been stated that the appellant was posted in Bihar which is his home State for 11 years and in Delhi for nine years. The respondents have denied that the impugned, order of transfer was passed mala fide and for any oblique purpose or for wrecking vengeance on the appellant by the respondent No. 2 as sought to be alleged. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that Shri S. N. Patra was transferred from Orissa to Calcutta. He had joined his place of posting at Calcutta and made representation to the higher authorities pointing out the hardship being suffered by him by the order of transfer. Such representation was considered and the Department considering the representation decided to transfer Shri S. N. Patra back to Orissa. In view of such decision, there was a necessity to transfer one of the employees to Calcutta for holding the post of Inspector of Exhibitions DAVP, Calcutta. The appellant was transferred to the said post and such order of transfer was passed in the exigencies of the service and for public purpose and there was no motive to penalise the appellant by passing the impugned order of transfer against him. The allegation made by the appellant that some of the employees mentioned by him in paragraph 3 of special leave petition have not been transferred but allowed to remain in the same station for years, has been disputed in the counter-affidavit and it has been contended that Shri C. M. Jha had served at Simla, New Delhi and also at Siliguri. Similarly Shri G. M. Mustafa also suffered orders of transfer earlier. It has been specifically stated in the counter-affidavit that the allegation made by the appellant that the officers mentioned in paragraph 3 have been continuously serving in Patna for