Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The petitioner is an Assistant Tax Superintendent (Tax and Revenue Inspector) which is a class III post governed by the U.P. Palika Centralized Services Rules, 1966. Rule 25 of the aforesaid Rules empowers the State Government to transfer any officer of the Centralized Service from one Palika to another.

2. In exercise of the said power, the petitioner has been transferred from Nagar Palika, Parishad Chandpur, Bijnor and has been attached to the Directorate without assigning any duties. This order of transfer/attachment dated 31st January, 2008 passed by the Chief Secretary has been impugned in the writ petition on the ground of malafidies and on the ground that it has been passed without application of mind by the authority concerned simply on the dictates of a political personality.

3. The writ petition was entertained by an order dated 18.2.2008 and in view of the fact that the transfer order was not a routine order of transfer but was an order made under the head VIP, the Court had directed the Standing Counsel to produce the record. The record has been produced and has been seen by me.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. All of them are agreeable for the disposal of this petition at this stage itself on the basis of the record without any further opportunity to file any counter or rejoinder affidavits.

5. Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Suneet Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred only on the basis of a letter written by one former member of the Lok Sabha and the Zila Parabhari, Bijnor U.P., of the BSP to the effect that the workers of the BSP have made complaints to him that the petitioner is working in the interest of the Samajwadi Party and his actions are contrary to the policies of the BSP. Therefore, he should be transferred from Chandpur.

6. The record produced do reveals the existence of the above letter of the former Member of Parliament (in short M.P.) of the Bijnor and that the impugned transfer order has been passed without verifying the substance in the complaints made against the petitioner simply to please the said political person.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has defended the order on the ground that the Chief Secretary was within its power to transfer the petitioner, even if it has been passed on the dictates of a political person and in support thereof he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of the Supreme Court 2007(8) SCC 150, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others. Sri Farman Naqvi who has appeared for the Nagar Palika Parishad Chandpur respondents No. 3 and 4 by filing counter-affidavit has defended the order on an additional ground that the petitioner is a resident of Bijnor and therefore he cannot be posted in the home district and in support has brought documents such as voters list of the year 2006 and the certificates of the school to establish that the petitioner is basically resident of district Bijnor.

8. There is no dispute to the settled legal preposition that where an employee holds a transferable post the transfer being part of the service condition of the employee should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Court unless, it is established that the order is malafide and has been passed in contravention of the service Rules or by an authority who is not competent to pass the same. In Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra) the Supreme Court has held that even if an employee has been transferred on the recommendation of a MLA that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order as it is the duty of the representative of the people to express the grievances of the people and the State Government is certainly empowered to transfer such employee on his behalf.

9. In Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi v. Jal Nigam and others, 2003 (11) SCC 740 Apex Court while dealing with the transfer of an employee effected at the recommendations either of Minister or MLAs, MPs and MLCs observed