Hon’ble B.K. Srivastava-II, J.—The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2000, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Paid Platoon Commander in the Home Guards Department. In the year 2007, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Inspector-Home Guards and thereafter he was promoted on the post of District Commandant vide order dated 4.7.2013 and he was posted at district Barabanki where he joined on 1.8.2013. While posted as District Commandant, Home Guards, district Barabanki, petitioner has been transferred to district Balarampur vide order dated 19.6.2014 passed by Joint Secretary Home Guards and consequential order dated 19.6.2014 passed by Senior Staff Officer/Senior Staff Officer to Commandant General Home Guards, being aggrieved from the impugned orders the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.

2. We have heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Awadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Zafaryab Zilani, learned Additional Advocated General, assisted by Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel appearing for State-respondents.

3. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred in anticipation against a non-vacant post. Further submission is that the petitioner has served only for a period of 10 months while being posted as District Commandant Home Guards, Barabanki and apparently there is nothing adverse against him. The transfer of petitioner has been done without assigning any cogent reason and in clear violation of the Government Transfer Policy dated 4.6.2014. The impugned transfer order has been passed by respondents on the basis of pick and choose policy and with mala fide intention, as in other districts, where additional charges have been given to the officers posted at other districts and hence there was no occasion for the authorities to disturb the present posting of the petitioner. It is also asserted that the impugned transfer order is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the daughter of the petitioner is pursuing her study of M.A. at district Barabanki and has deposited the requisite fee for academic session 2014-15 and as such the transfer of the petitioner from district Barabanki to Balrampur as it would cause hardship to the petitioner to look-after his children from district Balrampur and also it is against the guidelines and transfer policy issued by the State Government and the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that it is clear cut case of malice in law and therefore mala fide intentions can be presumed. It will appear from the perusal of the record that the main ground taken is that no reason whatsoever has been assigned while passing the impugned order which was subsequently modified also. Surprisingly, learned counsel for petitioner has himself taken a ground that the respondents have power to transfer an employee and post him at the place keeping in view the administrative exigencies. It has also been asserted in the grounds of writ petition that the impugned order suffers from malice in law.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner has cited two judgments passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court i.e. in Writ Petition No. 669 (SB) of 2013 wherein it has been observed that “ Any transfer made without public interest or on administrative ground, prima facie will suffer from vice of arbitrariness” and in Writ-A No. 41098 of 2013 where it has been observed that” transfer is an incident of service and the Court are extremely reluctant to interfere in transfer orders made in public interest or administrative exigencies. However, the Courts do interfere in transfer matters where there is violation of statutory rule or in a case of mala fide.

7. The contention of learned Additional A