S.N. Aggarwal, J.

1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, is aggrieved by an order of his transfer dated 25th June, 2008 transferring him from N.T.P.C. Hospital, Vidyut Nagar, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P) to R.G.P.P.L. site at Mumbai on secondment basis. He has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/orders or directions against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 quashing the transfer order dated 25th June, 2008.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Medical Officer (E.N.T.) in N.T.P.C. vide appointment letter dated 13th August, 1993 and consequent upon his said appointment he was posted to Rihand Super Thermal Power Project, P.O. Rihand Nagar, Distt. Sonbhadra (U.P.). Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from there to his present place of posting at N.T.P.C. Hospital, Vidyut Nagar, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P). He has now been transferred to R.G.P.P.L. site at Mumbai on secondment basis vide transfer order dated 25th June, 2000, which is at page 9A of the paper book.

3. The petitioner has alleged that the impugned transfer order passed by the respondents against him has been passed arbitrarily with mala fide intention as a mode of punishment on him. The petitioner has also alleged undue hardship caused to him and to his family by the impugned transfer. He has stated that he has two children namely Gaurav, aged 7 years and Pareksha, aged 10 years, who are studying in Class-I and Class-IV respectively in Delhi Public School, Vidyut Nagar, Dadri, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.). He has contended that there is no similar school of the status of the Delhi Public School at the place where he has been transferred vide impugned transfer order and, therefore, according to him the studies of his children would suffer with the change of syllabus, etc. The petitioner has further contended that there is no provision for transferring an employee outside Delhi as per the Service Rules and Regulations including the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, Administrative Orders, etc. applicable in NTPC (respondent No. 1). It is on these grounds that the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned transfer order and to allow him to continue to work in the hospital where he is presently posted.

4. This petition was taken up for admission hearing on 14th July, 2008 and on that day Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner after advancing some arguments in the case took time to place certain correspondence that exchanged between the parties and also the relevant Service Rules having bearing on the impugned transfer order. On the request of the counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned to be taken up on 22nd July, 2008. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application being CM No. 9947/2008 for permission to plead additional grounds in support of his challenge to the impugned transfer order. This request made by the petitioner in CM No. 9947/2008 was allowed vide order passed by the court on 22nd July, 2008. Remaining arguments in the main petition were heard on 22nd July, 2008 and after the counsel for the petitioner had concluded his arguments on that day and when the court had just started dictating judgment, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner requested for time to take instructions from his client to withdraw the present writ petition and on his said request the case was adjourned for today i.e, 23rd July, 2008. On 23rd July, 2008 the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a statement that the case may be disposed of by a speaking order and accordingly the case has been taken up for disposal on merits.

5. The main thrust of the arguments of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner was that the impugned transfer order is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the respondents. In support of his said argument, the learned Counsel has referred and relied upon the communication that exchanged b