1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.12.2009 affirming her earlier order of transfer from Gaunaha to Madhubani.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer is in the form of a punishment and has been passed at the dictates of others. The petitioner has not had adequate opportunity to defend herself in the matter.

4. A show cause notice appears to have been given to the petitioner to which she replied on 20.11.2009. Though the impugned order states that no show cause has been filed, in fairness to the petitioner the Court has gone through the statements made in her reply to the show cause which she claims to have submitted to the authorities.

5. Transfer is a normal incidence of service and the Courts refrain from interference unless there be manifest arbitrariness, violation of statutory rules and procedure or palpable mala fide in the transfer. If an order of transfer has been passed for an administrative reason and when it is challenged the administrator discloses the reason, all that the Court is required to see is whether the reasons are germane t