The power of transfer is an essential attribute of the power of administrative control and the exercise of administrative discretion in the matter of transfer of an employee from one post to another would not be open to challenge except when the said discretion has been exercised in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner so as to violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 14 of the Constitution of India or has been exercised malafide with an ulterior motive or for an extraneous purpose.

1. - This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated December 11, 1981 of the learned Single Judge dismissing S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 1694 of 1981, whereby the appellant challenged order No. L (G) 838/35 dated October 31, 1981, whereby he was transferred from the post of Assistant Personnel Officer, Jaipur to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer, Baroda on the vacant post.

2. The facts giving rise to this special appeal are that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste and had received quick promotions under the roster system introduced by the Government. As such he incurred the disple asure of the officers belonging to the general category and they started harassing him. The appellant belongs to Kota Division. He was promoted as Assistant Personnel Officer in the scale of र 650-1200/- vide order dated October 1, 1975 and was transferred from Kota and posted are Assistant Personnel Officer (Pay Commission) at Jaipur. Respondent No. 3 Harendra Singh Senior Divisional Operating Superintendent, Western Railway, Jaipur bore ill will against the appellant. At his instance Shri Haldiya gave various notes of displeasure on the ground of lack of speedy disposal of the work under appellant's control. Shri R.C. Sethi, Divisional Superintendent also gave similar notes. His pay it E.B. was also withheld and ultimately he was ordered to be reverted from the post of Assistant Personnel Officer to non-gazetted post vide order dated October 28, 1977. The appellant submitted detailed representations to various authorities, but without any success and ultimately he made representation to the State Minister for Railways on November 14, 1977. The reversion of the appellant was ultimately revoked by the Railway Board. Although the word 're-promotion' has been used in the order, but in fact it was the order for revocation, because the appellant was paid salary for the interim period from October 28, 1977 to December 23, 1977 The appellant had also alleged a number of illegal actions taken by respondent No. 3 and other persons at the instance of respondents No. 2 & 3 His further averment was that the appellant applied for leave on illness of his wife, but respondent No 2 declined to grant leave on the ground that his request would be considered only when Senior Divisional Personnel Officer resumes duties. Shri D.N. Sharma was transferred, but the order of transfer was not given effect to on the ground of illness of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, whereas respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by their manipulations got the appellant transferred to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer, Baroda and he was relieved on the same day and was made to sign antedated note, even though the order was served upon him on November 5, 1981. There had been a planned action against the appellant. His service record was damaged by respondent No. 3 from time to time and respondent No 2 and his predecessor-in-office played in the hands of Shri D.N. Sharma He made many representations, but it is his misfortune that his representations did not receive any consideration except in the matter of reversion. The Railway Board vide its letter No. E(SCT) 74 CM 1558 dated January 14, 1975 drew the attention of the authorities towards its letter dated November 19, 1970, wherein it was desired that the transfer of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees should be confined to their native district or adjoining districts or places where the administration can provide quarters and these instructions should be followed to the maximum extent subject of course to the exigencies of service. However, in the case of the appellant, the transfer order was passed in flagrant disregard of the above noted policy decision of the Railway Board. There exist no reason for the appellant's transfer and no reason has been disclosed in the impugned order and thus the appellant has been discriminated with othe