( 1. ) BY this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing that part of the order Annexure-P2 which relates to the posting of the respondent No. 3 at Bhopal and the transfer of the petitioner to Satna from Bhopal.

( 2. ) THE respondent No. 1, M. P. State Agro Industries Devlopment Corporation Limited is the state within the meaning of Article 12 ot the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 2 is its Chairman and respondent No. 3 is an employee of the respondent No. 1, like the petitioner. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent No. 1 on April 2, 1975 as an Asstt. Agro Service Engineer after obtaining the B. Tech degree in Agriculture Engineering from Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. By promotion, now being quite senior in the hierarchy of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner occupies the post of Deputy General Manager w. e. f. July 28, 1980. ( 3. ) BY Annexure-P2, the petitioner was directed to be transferred as Deputy General Manager from Bhopal to Satna. By this very order Annexure-P2, the respondent No. 3, who was the Manager at the Headquarters of the respondent No. 1, was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager and posted at Bhopal. The grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that within 14 years of his service, he has been transferred 11 times to different places of M. P. while the latest order of transfer contained in Annexure-P2 has been passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in a mala fide manner. The petitioner contends that the respondent No. 3 who was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager could have been transferred to Satna in place of the petitioner because he had been constantly posted at Bhopal for the last 10 years - reason being that he is in good books of the Managing Director and the Chairman of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner, on receiving Annexure-P2 the order of his transfer on July 1, 1989, immediately presented a representation against the said order. This representation is Annexure-P3 and copy of another representation is Annexure-P4. The petitioner also prayed for the issuance of an interim writ for staying the operation of the order dated July 1, 1989 (Annexure-P2 ). This Court on July 6, 1989 granted the interim writ and directed that the operation of the transfer order of the petitioner from Bhopal to Satna shall remain stayed.

( 4. ) THE respondents have controverted the contents of the petition in their return and inter alia refuted the allegation that the transfer order Annexure-P2 was passed favouring respdt. No. 3. According to the respondents, the petitioner, being senior in service, experienced and well-versed in managing affairs, was found to be suitable for being posted for opening the new branch at Satna. They further contended that without any mala fide intention and keeping in view the interest of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner was transferred to Satna. According to this return, the petitioner is a technically qualified officer and has earned, comparatively best qualification and experience in the field work as a Branch Manager. Because the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 on June 26, 1989, proposed to sanction to open three new more regional offices at Satna, Sagar and Rewa, the Deputy General Manager rank officers were required to be sent to these three regional offices. As the opening of the new branch at Satna was a new estalishment and the respondent No. 3 is a less technically experienced person in comparison to the petitioner, that is why the respondent No. 3 was not assigned this job. The respondents further contended in their return that the transfer order Annexure-P2 was passed keeping in view the best interest of the respondent No. 1; and as the petitioner was found to be the fittest person for occupying the job, he was transferred to the new branch at Satna. The respondents denied that the respondent No. 3 is