S.N. Bhargava, J.
1. The petitioner is a teacher working in jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti, Neem-ka-thana and he also claims to be an active member of the Rajasthan Sikshak Sangh. He was transferred by Order No. 2438 dated 4/9/1982, butr the same was cancelled by the State of Rajasthan by its order dated 5/10/1982 (Annx. 1). A copy of the said order was also endorsed to thbe Private Secretary to the Minister in view of Minister's order dated 27/9/1982. The petitioner was again transferred from Jaitpura to Dalpura vide order dated 6/1/1983, but the order was not implemented till 2/2/1983 and, therefore, a reminder was issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner (Adm-III) on 31/1/1983 (Annx 2) for mplementing the transfer order dated 6/1/1983. In pursuance of the said transfer order dated 6/1/1983. In pursuance of the said transfer order dated 6/1/1983 and the reminder dated 31/1/1983, the petitioner joined at new place of posting an order was again issued on 2/2/1983 (Annx. 3). The Development Commissioner (Adm-III), Gram Vikas Panchayat Raj, Rajasthan, issued yet another order on 28/2/1983, canceling the transfer order dated 6/1/1983. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid illegal and impugned order dated 3/3/1983 passed by the Deputy development Commissioner, the present writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the same with the further direction that the petitioner should not be transferred. The petitioner's contention is that there are two political groups in the area. One is led by Shri Madan Diwan and the other by Shri Mohan Lal Modi and, since Shri Mohan Lal Modi is prejudiced against the petitioner because of misunderstanding that the petitioner belongs to his rival group, led by Shri Madan Diwan therefore, it is because of this political interference that all these transfers have been made and since the transfer orders have been passed purely because of political pressure and motivated with extraneous consideration and for achieving an alien purpose and with oblique motive. It was neither on administrative exigencies nor in public interest and, therefore, malafide, arbitrary, illegal & unjust and hence deserves to be quashed. The writ petition came up for admission on 10/2/1983 when Shri A.K. Sharma Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 as he had tiled a caveat and sought short time to argue the matter. The case was fixed for arguments on 11/3/1983. A reply was also filed on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2. In its reply, non-petitioner No. 2 has also taken preliminary objections that Since there are allegations of malafides against Shri Mohan Lal Modi and the petitioner has not impleaded Shri Mohan Lal Modi as a respondent, the writ, petition should be dismissed in limine on this count alone. He has further pleaded that the allegations of malafides; are vague and, therefore, should be ignored and since the petitioner has been using political influence for getting his transfer orders cancelled he is not entitled to pursue this writ petition and should be dismissed in limine. On merits also, the non-petitioner has submitted that since there were written complaints against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner along with other 42 teacher were transferred by a common order dated 4/9/1982 (Annx. R/1). The transfer order is neither malafide. They have also produced the order of the State Government dated 14/1/1982 (Ann. R/2), by which the order dated 5/10/1982 (Annx. 1) was cancelled, and the earlier order of transfer dated 4/9/1982 was restored. They have also produced copy of the order dated 6/1/1983 (Annx. R/3) issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner (Adm.-III) requesting to issue the order of transfer of the petitioner and five others under intimation to him. They have contended that the order dated 6/1/1983 was absolutely illegal, without jurisdiction and of no avail. Toe nuttier of transfer was discussed by the Standing Committee for Administration & Finance of the Panchayat Samiti, Neem-ka-Thana. on 25/1/1983 and it was unanimously resolved that since the transfers were made on account of complaints, for administrative, reasons and exigencies of service they should be implemented otherwise it will result in indiscipline in the department and, have denied that the action of the Panchayat Samiti was on account of any pressure from Shri Mohan Lal Modi.
2. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties were heard at length. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Ram Kishan v. District Education Officer, Kulu 1980 Lab. I.C. 36, in which a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court has deprecated the interference of public workers in day to day administration of the State, particularly transfer of employees. But in the same ruling, it has been observed that if the petitioner himself resort to extra constitutional means to secure his transfer orders cancelled, as is the admitted case, the High Court should not interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner disentitled himself to any relief under the discretionary powers in the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
3. Reliance has also been placed on P. Pushpakaran v. Chairman Coir Board 1979 (1) SLR 309, wherein the Kerala High Court quashed the transfer order as the order was malafide and passed more as punishment than in administrative necessity. Shri Arya has also placed reliance on Parkash Chandra Saxena v. State 1980 Lab IC 1311 wherein it has been observed that a civil court has jurisdiction to see whether the transfer order of a Govt. servant is passed malafide or with ulterior purpose to accommodate some other officer. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner was transferred to accommodate a particular officer.
4. In Chiranjan Singh v. State of West Bengal 1981 (2) SLR 810, the Calcutta High Court has held that the High Court can go into the question as to whether a transfer order has been passed at the behast of the political leader and if on facts it is found that it is not in bona fide exercise of the power, but colourable exercise of power, the Court can quash a transfer order. There is no dispute with this proposition of law, but it is to be seen whether in the present case the transfer can be said to be not in bonafide exercise of power, but in colourable exercise of power. He has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.N. Sharma etc. v. Union of India 1983 RLR 41, to which I was also a party, wherein it has been held that the High Court can quash the transfer order if it finds that it was not bona fide but malafide with a view to punish the appellant for his union activities.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 has placed reliance on Ram Pratap v. State of Rajasthan 1982 (1) ILR 278, in which it has been held that the transfer order need not be as peaking order and a judicial review of an order of transfer is permissible only if it is made in malafide exercise of the power. Transfer made for administrative reasons and in the exigencies of service cannot be interfered with unless the petitioner shows that some extraneous considerations were responsible for the same and it has been held in that case that the State Government has no power to interfere with the transfer orders passed by the Panchayat Samiti. He has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. C.R. Shit (1982) 11 SLR 402, by which the authority cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner reported in Chiranjan Shit v. State of West Bengal (Supra) has been reversed. The Division Bench while reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge has observed that the onus to prove malafide lies heavily on the person who alleges it, and since the petitioner has failed to discharge this onus, the transfer order was held to be bonafide.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties and have also perused the various authorities cited by them and the various orders produced by them The petitioner has himself mentioned in his writ petition that there are two parties in the area one party is led by Shri Madan Diwan and the other by Shri Mohan Lal Modi and the petitioner through his Sikshak Singh and Shri Madan Diwan a social worker approached the Government and, therefore, the State Government was pleased to cancel the transfer order dated 4/8/1982, which shows that the petitioner himself has been resorting to influence by politicians in obtaining the transfer order cancelled. The petitioner was aggrieved by the original transfer order dated 4/8/1981 and if that original order was mala fide, not for administrative convenience and exigencies of service, then he could have challenged that order before this Court, or he could have resorted to any other remedy through a court of law. But the petitioner himself instead of persuing the constitutional remedy resorted to extra-constitutional means to secure the desired relief. Therefore, in my view, he has disentitled himself to seek any relief in the-extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. I am fully supported in this view by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh reported in Ram Krishan v. District Education Officer, Kulu (Supra), cited by the petitioner himself. The facts narrated by the petitioner in bis writ petition clearly indicate that the orders have been passed in the present case like a game of shuttlecock and this Court will not like to because a referee to such a game and, therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the transfer order. Moreover, Shri Modi has not been made a party to the writ petition, though, there are several allegations against him and on that account also the petition should fail. Shri Modi was not a member of the standing committee which has passed the original transfer order and the Government should not have interfered with the transfer order passed by the Panchayat Samiti.
7. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed summarily with no orders as to costs.