JUDGMENT Jagdish Bhalla, J.
1. This writ petition Is directed against the order of transfer dated 29.6.1998. Prior to this order of transfer, the petitioner was transferred from Bareilly to Pillbhlt by order dated 14.5.1998. Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 14.5.1998, the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 860 (S/B) of 1998 on 6.6.1998. Thereafter by . order dated 9.6.1998. transfer order of the petitioner to Pilibhit was cancelled. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that since the impugned order of transfer has been withdrawn, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed as Infructuous. But, the petitioner was shocked to receive the impugned order dated 29.6.1998 transferring him this time from Bareilly to Ghazipur.
2. The law with regard to transfer has developed in the recent past to the extent that the High Court can only interfere in the orders of transfer if either there is violation of law or where the transfer order has been passed on the ground of mala fides. In the present case, although, there is no allegation of violation of any law, however, the petitioner has made several allegations with regard to mala fides in facts.
3. We are of the considered opinion that mala fides can be of two types, viz., mala fides in facts and mala fides in law. The petitioner has specifically alleged mala fides in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the writ petition.
4. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of U. P. Jal Nigam whereas counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of private respondent and the stand taken by respondent No. 4. as submitted by the counsel for the respondent, is that there was no interim order in Writ Petition No. 860 (S/B) of 1998 filed on 6.6.1998. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the order of cancellation has been passed irrespective of the fact of filing of the writ petition. Further from the counter-affidavit filed by the counsel for respondent No. 4, it is evident that wife of respondent No. 4 had made representation and on that, the Minister for Urban Development, U. P. passed the order regarding transfer of opposite party No. 4. Nothing has been indicated in the counter-affidavit under what circumstance the wife of opposite party No. 4 moved representation for transfer of her husband because there is no such rule under which wife of an employee can make representation with regard to service conditions or homely problems of an employee. We could have appreciated representation made by the wife of opposite party No. 4 had opposite party No. 4 been bedridden or with fractured hand resulting him not in a position to sign the representation. We are of the considered opinion that wife of a Government servant has no right to make any representation, under law, for transfer of her husband in normal circumstances where the employee is in a position to make representation.
5. Although no interim order was passed in Writ Petition No. 860 (S/B) of 1998, nevertheless, the order of transfer dated 14.5.1998 was assailed by the petitioner by filing writ petition on 6,6.1998 after spending a lot of money. Now, a thought can be given that the order of transfer dated 14.5.1998 was cancelled only to circumvent the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 860 (S/B) of 1998. On behalf of the petitioner, in good faith, it was informed to the Court that since the impugned order of transfer has been withdrawn, the writ petition has become infructuous. Thereafter, after twenty days the petitioner was again transferred. Therefore, it can be said that it was an Intentional act on part of the authorities to Initially cancel the order of transfer since writ petition against the impugned initial transfer order was pending and after the petitioner informed in good faith, to the Court that the writ petition has become infructuous, the petitioner was again transferred. This clearly leads to mistrust and bad faith. If the discretionary power has been exercised with an intention to circumvent the constitutional proceedings pending in a Court, it amounts to mala fides in law and such an action on part of an organisation, which is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, appears to be well-planned and it stinks.
6. Since there was an interim order, therefore, the petitioner is continuing at Barellly for quite sometime. A Government servant has no right to continue at a particular place of posting, for an indefinite period. It is the right of employer to transfer its employee anywhere on administrative grounds, in public Interest, and in accordance with law.
7. In the light of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order of transfer dated 29.6.1998 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. However, we would be falling in our duty if we do not clarify that it would be open for the authorities to transfer the petitioner whenever there are administrative exigencies or public interest.