By the Court.—Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissing the appellant’s writ petition challenging the order of his transfer.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned order of transfer having been passed at the behest of the Minister, Animal Husbandry and hence it is malicious in law and cannot be sustained.

3. After perusing the record as well as the judgment under appeal we are of the view that no interference is called for in this appeal. It appears that initially the appellant was posted as Live Stock Extension Officer at Cattle Care Centre, Niyamtabad, District Chandauli wherefrom he was transferred to Cattle Care Centre, Dulhipur vide Chief Veterinary Officer, District Chandauli’s order dated 14.8.2006 and in his place one Ram Awadh Yadav, Live Stock Extension Officer was posted at Niyamtabad. Subsequently vide order dated 24.8.2006 the earlier order of transfer was modified and the appellant was posted at Kamalpur/Dhanapur instead of Dulhipur and one Mohd. Hafiz was transferred from Bhismpur Chakia to Niyamtabad. The order dated 24.8.2006 thereafter was cancelled by order dated 12.9.2006 pursuant to the direction issued by Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Varanasi. It appears that the Ministry of Animal Husbandry thereafter intervened and pursuant to the Government Order dated 28.11.2006, the cancellation order dated 12.9.2006 was recalled. Thereafter by order dated 2.1.2007 the appellant has been posted at Bhismpur Chakia i.e. the place wherefrom Sri Mohd. Hafiz was transferred to Niyamtabad and the said Sri Mohd. Hafiz has been sent Niyamtabad whereagainst the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The only ground which has been taken by the appellant and argued before us is that the impugned order of transfer having been passed pursuant to the orders of the Minister of the concerned department, therefore, per se it is vitiated in law. We do not find any force in the submission. A Minister of the department in our view can give suitable direction in the interest of the department to the officers concerned, since for effective functioning of the department he is answerable to the representatives of the people in the House. A Division Bench in Narendra Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and others, 2002(1) UPLBEC 369 while considering the transfers made on the representation of representative of people i.e. M.L.A. or M.P. observed as under :

“We are clearly of the opinion that from the mere fact that if a Government servant is transferred on the basis of a complaint made by a MLA or MP or a leader of the political party, it cannot be held that the same is mala fide and the transfer order cannot be struck down on the said ground alone without there being anything more. A MLA or MP is the representative of the people and common public has access to him. Often it is very difficult for a common man to meet the higher officers and to bring to their notice the misdeeds or the wrong way of functioning of a Government servant at a lower level. It is not possible for a common man to go to the capital of the State namely, Lucknow, and then to meet the higher officers to lodge a complaint against the wrong manner of functioning of a Government servant. The MLA and MP visit their constituency frequently and meet the members of the public. It is far easier for the public to lodge a complaint against the improper functioning of a Government servant with their representative namely the MLA or MP of the area than with the higher officers. If in such circumstances, the MLA or MP takes up the matter and brings to the notice of the higher officers or the minister of the concerned department about the misdeeds of a Government servant, no exception can be taken to such a course of action. The representatives of the people (MLA and MP) hold responsible constitutional p