The court emphasized that the reasons for the transfer were recorded in the files of the Government, and the transfer was made in public interest and on account of administrative exigencies. The court also highlighted the absence of evidence of malafides or arbitrary exercise of power in the transfer order.

Ranjana Desai, J.

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, has challenged in this writ petition judgment and order dated 26/9/08 delivered by The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ("MAT" for short) in Original Application No. 324 of 2008.

2. The 1st respondent holds B.E. (Civil) degree. In 1976 he joined as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State Government. He was recruited directly through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission as Asstt. Executive Engineer Class I in 1982. In due course he was promoted as Chief Engineer. He worked as Chief Engineer Water Resources Development Centre, Aurangabad. In November, 2006 he was transferred as Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Local Sector, Pune. He was working in that post from 4/11/06. Even though he had not completed his normal tenure of three years, he was transferred as Chief Engineer M.M.R.D.A, Mumbai by order dated 10/1/08. By the same order respondent 2, who was posted as Chief Engineer, M.M.R.D.A, Mumbai, was transferred to the post of Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation (Local Sector) Pune. The said order was challenged by the 1st respondent in the MAT by filing Original Application No. 45 of 2008. The said original application was allowed by the MAT by its order dated 25/2/08. The MAT observed that no special reasons for midterm transfer of the 1st respondent were recorded as required by Section 4 (4)and Section 4 (5) of the Maharashtra Government Servant’s Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharging of Official Duty Act, 2005 ("the Transfer Act"). After the MAT set aside the 1st respondent’s midterm transfer, the petitioners cancelled the transfer order dated 10/1/08 by order dated 2/5/08 and posted respondents 1 and 2 to their previous posts.

3. On 28/5/08 the petitioners passed another order transferring the 1st respondent to the post of Chief Engineer, M.M.R.D.A., Mumbai and transferring the 2nd respondent to the post of Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Pune. The 1st respondent challenged that order before the MAT. By the order dated 26/9/08 the MAT set aside the transfer order dated 28/5/08. Hence the petitioners have challenged the said order in this writ petition.

4. We have heard Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. Mr. Pradhan submitted that the impugned order is perverse and deserves to be set aside: He submitted that the MAT’s conclusion that the impugned order smacks of favouritism; that there is colourable exercise of power and that it is malafide has no foundation. He submitted that the power to effect midterm transfer is exercised by the petitioners in public interest and on account of administrative exigencies. Mr. Pradhan submitted that the 1st respondent has merely alleged malafides without giving any particulars thereof. He submitted that the order is supported by reasons which are separately recorded. He submitted that it is well settled that reasons need not be elaborate and the transfer order need not contain reasons. They could be separately recorded. He submitted that though the MAT has referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court, it has failed to appreciate the basic principles laid down by the Supreme Court which should guide the court’s while dealing with challenge to a transfer order. Mr. Pradhan submitted that the impugned order rests on conjectures and surmises. The MAT has traveled beyond its jurisdiction and unnecessarily drawn wrong inferences. Mr. Pradhan relied on all the judgments to which MAT has made a reference. In addition to those judgments he referred to S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 and M. Sankaranarayanan, IAS v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 763. He submitted that interference is necessary with the impugned order.

5. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the 1st respondent drew our attention to Section 4(5) of the Transfer Act and submitted that when midt