M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER joined service of the Taluk development Board, Shikaripur Taluk, shimoga District, as an Assistant Medical officer in 1966 and on his appointment he was posted to the Taluk Development board Dispensary, Maravalli. The petitioner has stated that having regard to his meritorious services he was posted as medical Officer in the year 1975 to the t. D. B. Dispensary, Hithla within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, Taluk Development board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in August, 1977. A decision was taken by the 2nd respondent-State that a number of dispensaries under the control of the Municipalities and other local authorities should be taken over under the management of the Government. Pursuant to the said decision the Government gave instructions to enter into suitable agreements with municipalities and other local authorities like the Board for smooth taking-over of the management of these dispensaries and hospitals. It is further alleged that originally it was understood by all that the take over was relatable to all dispensaries under the management of Municipalities and other local authorities, But, however, by an order dated 26-3-1979, the 2nd respondent-State decided to take over 125 allopathic dispensaries, 19 Ayurvedic dispensaries and two Unani dipensaries with effect from 1-4-1979 subject to the conditions mentioned in the order. The true copy of the order is produced along with the petition as Ext.-A. It is alleged by the petitioner that in order to confer an illegal favour on the 3rd respondent, Doctor V. Y. Ramana Gowda was posted as Medical officer to the Board's dispensary at Hithla within the Board's jurisdiction. In substance, the allegation of the petitioner is that though he was working at Hithla dispensary as a Medical Officer, his posting to dispensary at Yelagere amounted to reversion and was made with the mala fide intention of depriving the petitioner of the benefits of absorption into Government service under Ext-A. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the Chief Officer of the Board (2nd respondent) did not have the power to effect transfers either by virtue of the powers conferred under the Karnataka village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, or any resolution passed by any Taluk development Board. ( 2 ) AS against these allegations, the 1st respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections through its Chief Officer. ( 2 ) AS against these allegations, the 1st respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections through its Chief Officer. It is not necessary to set out in detail the averments made in the statement, of objections. In the statement of objections, it is pointed out that the petitioner was an assistant Medical Officer and was never promoted as Medical Officer at any time by the 1st respondent-Board. It has further pointed out that the petitioner is a graduate from the integrated College of Medicine, madras, and is not qualified to bo an Assistant surgeon as against the claims of the 3rd respondent who is an M. B. B. S. graduate of Karnataka University who possesses the necessary qualification to be Medical Officer-cum-Assistant surgeon in that category of dispensaries run by the Board which require medical Officer to be in-charge of such dispensaries. Jt is the case of the 1st respondent-Board that the dispensary at hithla in Shikaripur Taluk was sanctioned the post of the Medical Officer-cum-Assistant surgeon to be in charge of it and it was by a mistake that the petitioner was transferred in 1975 from Maravalli to hthla though he did not possess the requisite qualification to fill the post that had been sanctioned for Hithla dispensary run by the Board. ( 3 ) IN so far as it relates to the allegation of mala fide, the Chief Executive-Officer who has filed the statement of objections on oath has stated as follows :" Though the petitioner uses the word ' mala fide ' as an adjective to the impugned order of transfer, he has not substantiated the allegation of mala fide; he has not given the reason for the order being mala fide, nor does he attribute any ulterior motive to the respondent for making the said order. The allegation of mala fide is denied herewith. The petitioner has not made out any ground for invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. In fact, the impungned order restores legality in the matter of postings of the 3rd respondent. " ( 4 ) SIMILARLY, the 3rd respondent has filed his statement of objections stating that he is a graduate of Karnataka University while the petitioner is only a diploma holder pertaining to a mixture of Ayurveda and allopathy system of medicines. In fact, the impungned order restores legality in the matter of postings of the 3rd respondent. " ( 4 ) SIMILARLY, the 3rd respondent has filed his statement of objections stating that he is a graduate of Karnataka University while the petitioner is only a diploma holder pertaining to a mixture of Ayurveda and allopathy system of medicines. He has produced the true copy of the resolution of the Board dated 26-6-1974 whereby he was permanently appointed as a Medical officer at Hithla. This has been marked as Ext-C to the statement of objections. He has further added that since his transfer from Hithla to Maravalli and the petitioner's transfer to Hithla from Maravalli, he has been continuously representing to the Board pointing out the injustice done to him by putting him in charge of a hospital which had only a sanctioned post in Maravalli in the grade of an Assistant Medical Officer. He has further stated that the petitioner's transfer to Hithla in 1975 itself was legally untenable and therefore the petitioner cannot really have any legal ground for challenging the present order of transfer made by the 1st respondent on 28-3-1979 which is annexed as Ext-B to the petition. ( 5 ) FROM the above summary of facts of the pleadings of the parties, the following questions require to be determined: (1) Whether the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st respondent-Board has power to make transfers of petitioner and the 3rd respondent ? (2) Whether the Chief Executive Officer of Medical Board acted mala fide in passing the impugned order of transfer on 28-3- 1979 ? (3) To what relief is the petitioner entitled to ? ( 6 ) SEC. 119 of the Karnataka Village panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) deals with the Executive Officer of the Taluk board. Sec. 130 of the Act deals with the obligatory functions of Taluk Boards and sec. 131 deals with discretionary functions of the Taluk Boards. A perusal of the two latter sections indicate that no special provision is made in regard to the functions of the Taluk Board as to matters of administration of the Taluk Board in relation to its employees. However, sub-sec (3) of sec. 119 of the Act reads as follows :" The officers and servants employed by the Taluk Board under subsec. However, sub-sec (3) of sec. 119 of the Act reads as follows :" The officers and servants employed by the Taluk Board under subsec. (2) shall be subordinate to and subject to the disciplinary control of the Chief Executive officer. "it will be relevant in this behalf to refer to the Karnataka Village Panchayats and taluk Boards Employees (Recruitment and conditions of Service) Rules, 1962. Rule 10 thereof speaks of the appointing authority and reads as follows :"10. Appointing authority.-In the case of posts under a Panchayat, the Panchayat shall be the appointing authority for all posts. In the case of posts under the taluk Board, the Chief Executive Officer shall be the appointing authority for posts carrying a pay or a maximum pay of Rs. 100 p. m. and the Taluk Board shall be the appointing authority in respect of other posts. " ( 7 ) FROM the above, it is clear that for the posts of the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent, the appointing authority undoubtedly is the Taluk Board. On the strength of this provision, Shri Subramanya jois, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strongly contended that the appointing authority being the Board, the Chief Executive officer could not possibly have the power to effect transfer of officers in the service of the Board whom he could not appoint. This argument overlooks the statutory power conferred upon the Chief Executive officer under sub-section (3) of sec. 119 of the Act which gives him disciplinary control and complete subordination of all Officers employed by the Board. When all officers of the Board are subjected to the disciplinary control of the Chief executive Officer, it cannot be said that the Chief Executive Officer who is in charge of the day-to-day administration of the board does not have the power to effect transfers in the interest of the Board. However, that may be, the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that the Chief Executive officer has no jurisdiction to pass orders of transfer in respect of the petitioner because his transfer from Maravalli to hithla in the year 1975 was made by the chief Executive Officer himself. Even on this ground, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Chief executive Officer to pass the transfer order. Even on this ground, the petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Chief executive Officer to pass the transfer order. ( 8 ) THIS takes us to the 2nd question of mala fide xx x x. Even otherwise looking at the pleadings, the petitioner has not made out any case, such as close relationship between the Chief Executive Officer and the 3rd respondent or any other consideration which would render Ext.-B the transfer order dated 28-3-1973, an order actuated by mala fide intention. In fact, Ext-H produced by the petitioner goes to show that the Chief Executive Officer was motivated to undo a wrong which had been done earlier. I, therefore, reject the contention of the petitioner that Ext-B the transfer order impugned was actuated by any mala fide intention. ( 9 ) THE remaining question to be answered is simple. Since the petitioner has not made out a case for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution, his prayer for quashing Ext-B is liable to be rejected. ( 10 ) BUT, however, it must be observed that he has presented the writ petition possibly under a genuine understanding that his transfer immediately prior to the date of the order of the Government would take effect was made to deprive him of the right of absorption to the Government service. In this position, it is appropriate to observe that if the petitioner makes suitable representation to the appropriate authorities for his absorption to the Government service also it should be considered without reference to the stand taken in this writ petition. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .