The petitioner arises from the order passed by the learned District Judge, Tripura West at Agartala dismissing the appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1980 filed by the plaintiff-petiti­oner against the order of the learned Munsiff, Agartala passed on 15.7.80 in Title Suit No. 104 of 1980 rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff to issue a temporary injunction restraining defendents 1, 2 and 3 from giving effect to the transfer order dated 3.12.79 which was challenged in the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. (2). A brief resume of the facts and circumstances leading to the present petition under section 115, C. P. C. is stated below:- The plaintiff-petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Amin in the Settlement Office, Agutala in 1959 and was later absorbed as Estimator in the said Office with effect from 1.1.61. He served in different camps and offices of the Settlement Department and was ultimately posted as perm meat Copyist In April, 1971. There ware 5 permanent posts of Copyist in the Agartala Office of the Director of Settlement and Land Records (for short B.S. L.R.). Out tide this office there is no other post of Copyist under the D.S.L.R. Tae 5 posts aforesaid were placed in tech­nical (Record) Section of the Agartala Office of the D.S.L.R. There has been a separate cadre of Copyist with a strength of 5 Seniority of the Copyists it separately maintained under specific recruitment rules of Copyists. The plaintiff-petitioner went on leave from 3.12.79 for 6 days. Bat vide order dated 30.11.79 Issued on 3.12.79 and received by him on 10.12.79 the plaintiff petitioner was transferred to Settlement Officer's Office, North at Kumarghat. On 5.12.79 the petitioner submitted a representation to the D.S.L.R. against the order of transfer pointing out that the transfer order was passed against the transfer policy of the Government by which an employee having longer duration of stay at one station should be transferred there from before any other employes having shorter duration of the stay in the same station is transferred therefrom, and also that there were other copyists in the same office who bad the record of longer stay at the same station but who were not transferred. This representation was rejected. This representation was rejected. Later on 24.1.80 he submitted another representation to the D.S.L.R. stating that his family consisted of 10 members including his old and ailing mother and unmarried and unemployed sisters and brothers depending on him and that he being a poor employee resides at Agartala in the house of one of his nearest relatives and that be has to pay nothing towards food and lodging. In case of his transfer to Kumarghat he would have to maintain a separate establishment at his own costs and this will entail a hardship on him and on his family members who are living in the house of the family at Khowal in west Tripura. He also prayed for earned leave on medical ground by his petition dated 28.1.80, as he was suffering from tension due to the transfer order. He also prayed for extension of his leave on medical ground on 27.2.80 and 28.3.80. On the expiry of leave he joined his former office wherefrom he was not yet released on 28.4.80 and submitted joining report. But the petitioner was not allowed to sign the attendance register of the office. He met the D.S.L.R. (defdt-respondent No. 3) and reported the matter. The D.S.L.R. advised him to submit his attendance in office separately in writing. The petitioner began to submit his attendance in writing which was received in the office issuing acknowledgment receipt. This continued up to 29.4.80. But on 30.4.80 the Office refused to give any acknowledgment of his attendance report. But the petitioner continued to submit his attendance is the aforesaid way after informing the D.S.L.R. about the refusal of the office to acknowledge his attendance. The petitioner's salary has been withheld. His further averment is that Office where he was transferred namely the Settlement Officer's Office at Kumarghat there was no post of copyist and that the order of transfer did not mention the post to which he was transferred. Although such transfer and posting was in connection with revisional survey works and transfer was made under revisional survey scheme which did not create any post of copyist. He further states that in addition to the hardship that will be entailed on him due to the transfer his such transfer and posting would jeopardise his future in the cadre of copyists. (3). He further states that in addition to the hardship that will be entailed on him due to the transfer his such transfer and posting would jeopardise his future in the cadre of copyists. (3). After instituting the suit the petitioner submitted a petition supported by affidavit praying for issuing a temporary injunction against the defendants No. 1-3 and show cause notice was issued. After appearance of the defendants the learned Munsiff heard both sides on the petition of temporary injunction and rejected the prayer on 15.7.80. Against this order the plaintiff-petitioner went up in appeal before the learned District Judge who dismissed the appeal. (4). In this petition it has to be seen whether the Courts below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or whether it has acted illegally or with material irregularity while exercising its jurisdiction in connection with the matter. The prayer for tempo­rary injunction in the Court of the Muaslff was made" by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C In case of a temporary injunction the main factors to be considered are (1) prima facie case. (2) balance of convenience end (3) irreparable loss. In a number of decisions of the Supreme Court and of the different High Courts it has been settled that the doctrine of prima facie case means that there is a bonafide contention between the parties or a serious question is to be tried In the suit and that the question that must necessarily arise is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is a prima facie case and if so, between whom. In the instant case one of the main questions put up by the plaintiff-petitioner in the suit is whether he being a permanent copyist can be trans­ferred to another office in which there is no post of copyist. On behalf of the respondent (defdt-respondents 1, 2 and 3) a reply has been filed in this case wherein it has not been alleged that there is post of copyist in the Settlement Officer's Office at Kumarghat. A decision in Civil Rule No. 29 of 1973 between Satya Ranjan Bhattacharjae, vs. State of Tripura and others Agartala Bench of the High Court made by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'bla Mr. Justice S. Rangarajan end Hon'ble Mr. A decision in Civil Rule No. 29 of 1973 between Satya Ranjan Bhattacharjae, vs. State of Tripura and others Agartala Bench of the High Court made by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'bla Mr. Justice S. Rangarajan end Hon'ble Mr. Justice B, N. Sarma has been brought to the notice of the Court on behalf of the petitioner. In that decision of the writ petition, relying on the Supreme Court decision in E. P. Royappa, vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 vol. 10(1) S.L.R. 497 it was held that a person could be validly transferred from a post to any corresponding post even created under the inherent executive powers of the State Government and that no valid transfer could be affected of a person from one post to another post which has not been sanctioned. In that case no such post having been sanctioned or created against which the petitioner was transferred the transfer order was found illegal and quashed. It is, therefore, found that there was a prima fide cue bit wreaths plaintiff-petitioner and defdt-respondents No. 1-3. This aspect of the matter escaped consideration of the learned Counts below. Secondly the plaintiff-petitioner averred that his transfer to an office where there is no post of copyist would cause irreparable loss to him in the form of damaging his prospect in the cadre post which was being held by him as the order was of transfer and not one for deputation. This aspect also has not been considered by the learned Courts below. Tae principle of balance of convenience and inconvenience also seems to have been ignored by the learned Courts below in dealing with the matter. It appears prima facie that these factors go in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner so far as the matter of temporary injunction is concerned. There is no doubt that the administrative authority has got ample power to transfer an employee from one place to another place and even it lies within the power of the authority to make an exception to a transfer policy in cases of emergency or expediency or for the sake of public interest, (vide Santi Kumdr vs. Regional Deputy Director, Health Service, Patna & others. But where the foundation of the transfer is challenged and there are prima facie materials of such foundation the matter warrant sufficient consideration of the Court although the allegations of bias or arbitrariness has no sufficient basis, if alleged by the party seeking for temporary injunction. 5. The learned Munsiff after a lengthy discussion rejected the prayer of temporary injunction but found-, "in my opinion the plain­tiff will be entitled to be re-transferred from the office where-from he is now transferred as soon as the re visional survey in North Tripura is over". The learned appellate Court found that the plaintiff has been transferred to an office under the same D. S. L. R. and that the plaintiff himself previously prayed for transfer to his home town at khowai and also that some other copying also were transferred. But the learned District Judge did not record any finding as to the real controversy and its implication namely whether a person having permanent cadre post could be transferred to an office which has no such post, he having been transferred and not sent out on deputation. Neediest to say the place where he has been trans­ferred does not lie within his home town. The transfer of other copyists has no relevancy in the matter. But still the learned District Judge found.-"the authority may see whether appellant may be re-transferred to his place of convenience as he submits that there is his ailing mother and wife and children and they had to starve." 6. It further appears that the authority did not consider the representation made by the petitioner on the ground of his family troubles. However, it is seen that the learned courts below found that the petitioner's case warrants consideration for which they had asked the authority to retransfer the petitioner. The transfer order was made in 1979 in connection with the revisional survey works and we are now in the middle of 1982. As regards the transfer policy mentioned by the petitioner there is no controversy on behalf of the defendants-respondents. There are cases in which temporary injunction is solicited for putting impediment to the opponent party but there are cases for which temporary injunction if prayed for should be allowed as otherwise the very action may turn to be infructuous. As regards the transfer policy mentioned by the petitioner there is no controversy on behalf of the defendants-respondents. There are cases in which temporary injunction is solicited for putting impediment to the opponent party but there are cases for which temporary injunction if prayed for should be allowed as otherwise the very action may turn to be infructuous. In the latter case temporary injunction has to be allowed provided the recognised principles in that behalf are applicable to the case. In view of the discussion made above, it is found that the learned Courts below failed to exercise its jurisdiction la this respect. 7. The result la that the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. There will be a temporary injunction at prayed for till disposal of the suit. There will be no order at to costs.