State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situated and must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, as that would be a denial of equality under Art.14.

1. This writ petition is by the Executive Officer. Pulamanthole Panchayat to quash Ext. P1 order dated 12-10-1981 of the District Panchayat Officer, Malapuram, transferring him from Pulamanthole Panchayat to Mampad Panchayat. Ext. P1 order refers to an order E. 856750/81 dated 29-9-1981 of the 1st respondent the Director of Panchayats, Trivandrum, requiring the transfer of the petitioner from the Pulamanthole Panchayat Ext. P1 order is challenged as violative of Art.14 of the Constitution for the reason that, according to the petitioner, the order is not in bona fide exercise of power of the Department and that it has been passed on extraneous considerations

2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is stated in Para.3 that the transfer was solely on account of a representation made by the President of the Pulamanthole Panchayat before the 1st respondent, requesting him to transfer the Executive Officer A copy of the representation of the President of the Panchayat to the 1st respondent is produced as Ext R1. In Ext. R1 the President of the Panchayat alleges that the Executive Officer is not co-operative for the developmental activities of the Panchayat and hence he may be transferred.

3. The learned Government Pleader has produced the files before me, relating to the matter. The order of the Director of Panchayats dated 29-9-1981, referred to in Ext. P1 is a communication by the Ist respondent to the 2nd respondent and reads as follows:

"In this Office letter dated 17-8-1981 you were requested to furnish your enquiry report urgently. Again you were reminded on 22-9-1981 to furnish the report within a week. You have not furnished the report or conducted the enquiry so far. You are requested to transfer Sri. T. Muhammed, Executive Officer, Pulamanthole Panchayat forthwith and report the fact".

From this letter of the Ist respondent, it is clear that on the complaint Ext. R1 of the President of the Panchayat the 1st respondent wanted the 2nd respondent to make an enquiry and submit a report. Since no report of enquiry was forthcoming the 1st respondent has directed the 2nd respondent to forthwith transfer the petitioner. The basis of the order of transfer is Ext. R1 complaint by the president of the Panchayat. Even though the 1st respondent wanted an enquiry to be conducted on the complaint, he did not have the enquiry report before him on 29-9-1981 when he gave a direction to transfer the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Ext. P1 order was passed on account of the exigencies of service requiring a transfer of the Executive Officer.

4. In F. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR. 1974 SC. 555), it is stated at page 583 as follows:

"Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it roust not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations. It would amount to malafide exercise of power and that is hit by Art.14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are lethal radiations emanating different from the same vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Art.14 and 16."

In Smt. S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India & another (AIR. 1979 SC. 49), the Supreme Court stated thus:

"6. It is however not necessary to examine the question of malice in law in this case, for it is trite law that if a discretionary power has been exercised for an unauthorised purpose it is generally immaterial whether its repository was acting in good faith or in bad faith. As was stated by Lord Goddard C. J., in Pilling v. Aber