The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless a transfer order is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide, the courts should not interfere with transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons.

Judgment

G. P. Mathur, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against judgment and order dated 5. 5. 2005 of HIGH COURT OF DELHI by which Writ petition (C) No. 7387 of 2005, filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 7. 4. 2005 by which he had been transferred to Defence research and Development Establishment (for short drde), Gwalior, was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE plea taken by the appellant in the writ petition filed by him before the High Court was that he belonged to Army Medical Corps and was being shifted to a non-medical organization, which had only one officer of army Medical Corps and that too of the rank of Major or Lt. Colonel. The transfer order was malafide as it had been passed on account of his success in an earlier writ petition filed by him being W. P. (C) No. 6131 of 2003, whereunder he had sought quashing of certain proceedings initiated against him and on account of the decision in the writ petition the respondents ultimately promoted him to the rank of Major General. It was further pleaded that he had been transferred to Gwalior in order to accommodate one Brigadier R. P. Tripathi to the post of Director in the Institute of Nuclear medicine and Allied Sciences (for short inmas ). The writ petition was contested by the respondents on the grounds, inter alia, that the appellant was absorbed in the Defence research and Development Organization (for short drdo), which is engaged in carrying out scientific and technical research and development work of various projects related to defence forces and of which both INMAS and DRDE are branches and their terms and conditions of services are governed by Ministry of Defence Letter dated 23. 11. 1979, which provides for transfer of officers to any place in the country or outside. Both the INMAS and drde, Gwalior, are system based laboratories engaged in Research and Development activities in bio-medical fields and it had been decided to conduct training programmes of nbc Defence to train military, para-military staff and AMC doctors at DRDE, Gwalior, under the present conditions. The appellant was found suitable for undertaking the new project in the field for which he was trained abroad at public expense. The allegations regarding malafide action of the respondents or that he had been transferred to Gwalior in order to accommodate Brigadier R. P. Tripathi or someone else at INMAS was denied. After a thorough consideration of the affidavits filed by the parties and the material on record the high Court found that there was no substance in the appellants case and accordingly dismissed his writ petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant mainly confined his challenge to the transfer order dated 7. 4. 2005 on the ground of mala fide. It was submitted that the appellant had an unblemished record, but on the basis of a complaint he was attached for disciplinary action with Head Quarter Technical Group, eme, Delhi Cantt. on 3. 9. 2003. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 6131 of 2003 before the Delhi High court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents issued a charge sheet for initiating General Court Martial proceedings against him. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 18. 5. 2004 and the order dated 3. 9. 2003 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant was quashed. The proceedings initiated against the appellant for holding General Court Martial were also quashed and a direction was issued to the respondents to declassify the result of the promotion Board held on 4. 6. 2003. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court the respondents filed SLP (C) No. 11672 of 2004 before this Court, but the same was dismissed on 30. 3. 2005. The post of Director, INMAS had been advertised by DRDO on 20. 1. 2005, for which the appellant had also applied. He was called for interview on 22. 4. 2005 at r. A. C. , Delhi. However, an order was issued by the resp