Transfer is an incident of service and can only be interfered with if there is a violation of statutory rules or mala fide.

S. P. Mehrotra, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 28.6.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the order dated 3.8.2002 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1.

2. It appears that by the order dated 28th June, 2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), issued by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner, who was holding the post of Lekhakar, was transferred from Etah to the Headquarter at Lucknow in public interest.

The petitioner filed an earlier writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26990 of 2002 before this Court challenging the said order dated 28th June, 2002. The said writ petition was decided by the order dated 11th July, 2002. After noticing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said Writ Petition No. 26990 of 2002 that as per Government policy, the petitioner was not liable to transferred when only one and half years was left for his retirement, and that the last posting ought to be made on the choice of the petitioner, this Court in the said order dated 11th July, 2002, observed as follows : "No breach of any statutory rule or regulation has been shown. No case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out."

3. However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition, this Court by the said order dated 11th July, 2002, permitted the petitioner to make a representation within ten days. It was further observed that in case such a representation was made within a period of ten days from the date of the said order, the Director, Panchayat Raj Lekha Nideshalaya, U. P., Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (Respondent No. 1 in the said writ petition) would dispose of the said representation preferably within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of the said order dated 11th July, 2002 along with the representation was submitted by the petitioner before the said authority. It was further directed that if the representation was made by the petitioner, the operation of the transfer order dated 28th June, 2002, would remain stayed for a period of six weeks from the date of the said order.

4. Pursuant to the said order dated 11th July, 2002, the petitioner made a representation before the Director, Panchayat Raj Lekha Nideshalaya, U. P., Indira Bhawan, Lucknow, which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the present writ petition.

By the order dated 3rd August, 2002 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) the Director, Panchayat Raj Lekha Nideshalaya, U. P., Lucknow (Respondent No. 1 in the present writ petition) has decided the said representation filed by the petitioner pursuant to the said order dated 11th July, 2002, passed by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order dated 28th June, 2002, was against the Government policy and as such, the said transfer order is liable to be quashed.

Having considered the same submission on made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the earlier writ petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26990 of 2002, this Court in the said order dated 11th July, 2002, held that no case for interference in writ jurisdiction was made out. Thus, the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is no longer open to the petitioner.

7. I have perused the order dated 3rd August, 2002 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1. I do not find any illegality in the said order. Transfer is an incident of service. No interference is to be made with the transfer order unless there is violation of statutory rules or there is mala fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any violation of statutory rules or any mala fide on the part of the respondents. In the circumstanc