The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer can only be made in administrative exigency and public interest, and a transfer order not based on relevant considerations amounts to malice in law.

Sujoy Paul, J.;—

1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure P/1), whereby she is transferred from Gwalior to Bhopal and in lieu thereof, respondent No. 4 is transferred from Bhopal to Gwalior. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order is against the transfer policy and it is not issued in any administrative exigency. In fact transfer order is malafide in nature. To elaborate, Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was transferred from Bhopal to Gwalior by order dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure P/2). In obedience of this order, the petitioner joined at Gwalior. She worked at Gwalior with utmost sincerity and devotion. Her work at Gwalior was highly appreciated. By placing reliance on Annexure P/17 dated 11.04.2013, it is contended that the Managing Director appreciated the excellent performance of the petitioner. By drawing attention of this Court on clause 2 of the transfer policy dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure P/4), it is submitted that the petitioner could not have been transferred before completion of three years of period at Gwalior. Before completion of three years, transfer is permissible only when it is permitted by an officer superior than the competent authority to transfer her.

2. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was transferred to Gwalior by the order of General Manager (HR) and from Gwalior she was transferred by Chief General Manager (HR & A), whereas this could have been done only with the permission of Managing Director. It is further submitted that the word "permission" has a different meaning than "approval". In the present case, there exists no permission by the Managing Director. By placing reliance on clause 10 of the transfer policy, it is further contended that after transfer, the transferred officer cannot be posted to the same place from where he/she was transferred. This ban continues for three years. In the present case, there is a flagrant violation of policy because before completion of three years the petitioner is transferred from Gwalior and is posted to the same place from where she was transferred. It is further contended that the State Government issued circular dated 12.09.1997 in respect of reserved category employees and directed that those employees should not be victimized or harassed. It is further contended that the petitioner issued the order dated 12.08.2013, by this order petitioner instituted an enquiry to examine the irregularity in the matter of preparation of service book, personal record and files etc. The employer was aggrieved by this order and therefore, petitioner has been transferred. The transfer order is challenged on the ground of malice also by contending that one Sub-Engineer Subodh Kumar Ingle was transferred from Bhopal to Gwalior on 11.06.2009. He did not comply with the transfer order and remained absent for considerable long time. After holding an enquiry, the competent authority terminated his services on 19.10.2010. His departmental first appeal to Chief General Manager-CE was rejected on 23.11.2010 and then by the Managing Director on 28.07.2011. A review petition was rejected on 27.09.2011.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the 2nd review order was passed by the CE-Chief General Manager, Gwalior Region dated 03.03.2012. Thereafter, said Shri Ingle filed another review before Managing Director on 16.04.2012. The Managing Director sent that review through General Manager (HR) vide letter No. 98 dated 16.04.2012 to the then CE-Chief General Manager, Gwalior Region. The said authority by the order dated 24.04.2012 rejected it. Thereafter a letter dated 15.05.2012 was sent by the GM (HR) to the petitioner. But the petitioner informed that third review is not tenable. By drawing attention of this Court on Annexure P/14 dated 05.08.2