JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur dated 29.7.1963 transferring the petitioner from the post of Controller of Stores to the post of Zone Secretary I. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid order and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote him to the post of Assessing Officer and to include his name for the post of U.P. Nagar Adhikari in the list to be submitted to the Public Service Commission, U.P. for consideration. 2. The undisputed facts which are relevant to the questions in controversy are stated briefly:- The petitioner was holding the post of Public Relations and Information Officer in substantive capacity in the erstwhile Kanpur Development Board; that in 1953 the U.P. Local Bodies (Appointment of Administrator) Act XVII) of 1953 was passed and under the provisions of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act an Administrator was appointed for discharging the duties of both the Kanpur Urban Area Development Board and the Kanpur Municipal Board. On 23.4.1957 Sri M.A. Quraishi, I.C.S., Administrator, Kanpur Development and Municipal Boards passed an order the relevant portion of which is quoted below: "(1) with effect from the date he takes over charge Sri G.R. Bhagwat, P.R.O., is appointed to officiate as Controller of Stores. The post of P.R.O. will be kept in abeyance for the lien of Sri G.R. Bhagwat until he is confined in the post of Controller of stores. The duties of P.R.O. will be combined with the post of Secretary to Administrator. (2) With effect from the date he is relieved, Sri Shiva Madhav Misra reverted as Secretary and posted as Scheme Secretary, Zone I. (3) On relief by Sri Shiva Madhav Misra, Sri Avadh Behari lal Misra, Scheme Secretary, Zone I is transferred to the post of Scheme Secretary Zone III." 3. On 24th April Sri Quraishi held that the petitioner was senior to Sri Dixit and as such eligible for appointment as Controller of Stores (Annexure A). On first February 1960 the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam came into force and the Kanpur Corporation began to function in place of the Development and Municipal Boards. On 2.8.1963 Sri Dev Raj Up Nagar Adhikari went on deputation to Delhi and his post fell vacant. On first February 1960 the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam came into force and the Kanpur Corporation began to function in place of the Development and Municipal Boards. On 2.8.1963 Sri Dev Raj Up Nagar Adhikari went on deputation to Delhi and his post fell vacant. Consequently, on 29.7.1963 the impugned order was passed by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikar making certain transfers and postings. This order inter alia provided that Sri G.R. Bhagwat who was officiating as Controller of Stores in a temporary capacity was to be transferred on his substantive grade of Rs. 300/- to 600/- to the post of Zonal Officer I with all his other emoluments and Sri Hridya Narain Dixit was to take over in a temporary capacity as Controller of Stores in the approved grade (Annexure C to the Petition). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid order on the grounds; that it contravenes the provisions of Section 577(e) of the Mahapalika Act; that it is a punitive order of reduction in rank and of demotion with penal consequences to the petitioner and has been passed without conforming to procedure laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution and also because it is arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide inasmuch as certain juniors have been given higher posts over and above the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the impugned order has been passed by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari in his administrative capacity in exercise of his powers under Section 117, sub-Sections (5) and (6) of the Act and in the discharge of his statutory duties under the law and the petitioner has no right to question the same in these proceedings. Learned counsel contends that as the petitioner was only officiating as the Controller of Stores and has been sent back on his original substantive grade with full allowances, the impugned order is neither an order of demotion nor of reduction of rank of the petitioner. It is not a punitive order leaving any stain on the future career of the petitioner and as the respective suitability of the petitioner and others to hold a particular post lay within the discretion of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, he was competent to pass the impugned order in the interest of the administration of the Mahapalika and the petitioner cannot make any grievance on that score. Learned counsel has further urged that the petitioner's contention that he is senior to Sri H.N. Dixit who has been made to officiate as Controller of Stores under the aforesaid order is incorrect. I find force in his contentions. 6. Sub-Clause (e) of Section 577 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam reads:- "(e) all officers and servant is in the employ of the said Municipality, Improvement Trust, Development Board or local authority immediately before the appointed day shall, notwithstanding anything in Sections 106 and 107, be officers and servants employed by the Mahapalika in a temporary capacity under this Act and for so long as they are not appointed to posts created under this Act they shall draw the same salaries and allowances and shall be subject to the same conditions of service to which they were entitled or were subject on the said day;" 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as on the appointed day, that is, the 1st of February 1960, the petitioner was holding the post of Controller of Stores, his reversion to the post of Zonal Secretary was in contravention of the aforesaid provisions which laid down that the employees were to be subject to the same conditions of service to which they were entitled or were subject on the said day. There is no force in this contention. On the appointment day, though the petitioner was officiating as Controller of Stores, he had no right to that post and, as such, was not entitled to it. On the other hand, he had his lien on his substantive post of Public Relations and Information Officer and was entitled within the meaning of the aforesaid sub-clause of Section 517 to the conditions of service attached to that post, and as the impugned order does not deprive him of any of the privileges attached to his substantive post, it cannot be held to have infringed the aforesaid provision. 8. The order dated 23.4.1957 passed by the Administrator of the Kanpur Development Board clearly states that "Sri G.R. Bhagwat, P.R.O., is appointed to officiate as controller of Stores. The post of P.R.O. will be kept in abeyance for the lien of Sri. G.R. Bhagwat until he is confirmed in the post of Controller of Stores." 9. 8. The order dated 23.4.1957 passed by the Administrator of the Kanpur Development Board clearly states that "Sri G.R. Bhagwat, P.R.O., is appointed to officiate as controller of Stores. The post of P.R.O. will be kept in abeyance for the lien of Sri. G.R. Bhagwat until he is confirmed in the post of Controller of Stores." 9. The recital in the impugned order is that "Shri G.R. Bhagwat jo is samai Bhandhar Niyantrak ke pad par asthaie taur par karye kar rahe hain, ka asthantaran unke 300-20-400 mai bhakton ke Chetriye Adhikari 1 ke pad par kiya jata hai." 10. Thus it is obvious that the petitioner was holding the post of Controller of Stores in an officiating capacity and the impugned order has transferred him to a post equivalent to his substantive post of public Relations and Information Officer having the same salary, grade and conditions of service. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the impugned order has in any manner resulted in reducing the rank of the petitioner, or in his demotion. The order was not passed by way of punishment of the petitioner and does not leave any stigma on his future career. As such, the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not attracted in this case (Vide Prasidh Narain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R. 1964 All. 278.) 11. The petitioner in his affidavit has averred that one Sri H.N. Dixit who had been given the post of Controller of Stores in a temporary capacity under the impugned order was junior to him. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Nagar Mahapalika, this allegation has been denied and it has been averred that "Sri H.N. Dixit was appointed in the grade of Rs. 300-600/- (which is also the substantive grade of the petitioner) on 16.10.1948 while the petitioner was appointed in the grade of Rs. 300-600 on 1.4.1949." It is true that in April, 1957 Sri. M.A. Quraishi, the then Administrator of the Development Board, has held that the petitioner was senior to Sri Dikshit. But in view of these categorical assertions by the Nagar Mahapalika, I do not deem it expedient to give any finding on this question. 300-600 on 1.4.1949." It is true that in April, 1957 Sri. M.A. Quraishi, the then Administrator of the Development Board, has held that the petitioner was senior to Sri Dikshit. But in view of these categorical assertions by the Nagar Mahapalika, I do not deem it expedient to give any finding on this question. The respective seniority of the petitioner and Sri Dixit and their comparative suitability to the post of the Controller of Stores is a matter primarily for decision of the Mahapalika Authorities and there is not sufficient material on the record on which a finding can be given on these questions. 12. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the order on the ground that it has been passed mala fide. In the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 1 it has been asserted that the action taken by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari was in the best interest of the Nagar Mahapalika and the allegation that it was mala fide is incorrect. The petitioner has alleged that one Sri Shiva Kishore Misra, younger brother of Sri Shiva Madhav Misra, who has been temporarily appointed as Assessing Officer under the impugned order, is a Sabhasad of the Nagar Mahapalika belonging to the majority party and that he has been making efforts to see that his brother supersedes his senior officers and under his influence on Sri Shyam Manohar Dwivedi made certain imputations against the petitioner through a resolution which he had to withdrawn ultimately in June, 1963. These allegations by themselves do not go to suggest much less prove any mala fide on the part of the Mukhya Adhikari who is a senior member of the Indian Administrative Service and it would be too much to presume that he would have passed the impugned order under the influence of a member of the Nagar Mahapalika. I, therefore, hold that no case of mala fide has been made out at all. 13. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The stay order dated 4th February, 1964 is vacated. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.