JUDGMENT S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a special appeal filed by the State of U. P. against the order dated 22nd of October, 1991 passed by Honourable B. M. Lai, J. in writ petition No. 28431 of 1991. 2. The petitioner Sheshmani Tripathi was holding the po>t of Superintendent Central Jail, Naini. He was transferred from Ghurma Jail to Central Jail, Naini on the post in question by an order dated 30th of July 1991. The petitioner joined the past in question on 1st of August, 1991 The petitioner had functioned on the post in question for less than two months and on 24th of September, 1991 he was again transferred from Naini Central Jail to Moradabad. It is this order which was the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner had challenged the order on the ground that the order was purely arbitrary and was against the policy contained in the Government order dated 9th of July 1991. No stay order was passed by this court in the petition filed in this court. On 1st of October, 1991 it was ordered that if any person joins in place of the petitioner, his joining will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State prayed for and took two weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. The counter affidavit had been filed by the State of U. P. after examining the allegations made in the petition and the counter affidavit. Learned Single Judge was of the view that the order of transfer was without any rhyme or reason and, therefore, the order dated 24th of September, 1991 was quashed. 3. Learned Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged that the order of the learned Single Judge was wholly arbitrary as he has not considered the averments made in the counter affidavit and as such the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 4. We have heard Sri D. S. Misra and Shri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner. Learned Chief Standing Counsel in support of his argument has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 . 4. We have heard Sri D. S. Misra and Shri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner. Learned Chief Standing Counsel in support of his argument has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 . In this case it has been held as follows : ' In our opinion the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in bublic interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. In this case it has not been laid down that when the Government order is wholly arbitrary and without any valid basis then too the High Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The finding of the learned Single Judge is that the order of transfer has been passed without any rhyme or reason meaning thereby that the order is arbitrary and without any valid basis. It is no doubt true that the learned Single Judge has not referred to the various averments made in the counter affidavit, in detail but it is clear from the order that the finding has been recorded in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit. 5. We have also examined ourselves the averments made in the counter affidavit. 6. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit of Sri Amar Nath, Section Officer, Home (Jail) Section I, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, filed on behalf of the State, the reason on which the transfer order has been passed against the petitioner has been stated. IN paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the transfer of the petitioner had been made on administrative grounds. IN paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the transfer of the petitioner had been made on administrative grounds. It has been further stated that a complaint was received against the petitioner in which it has been alleged that the petitioner had physically assaulted a subordinate security staff belonging to Schedule Caste and, consequently, it resulted in serious resentment and hostility among the members of the subordinate staff against the petitioner. This appears to 'be .the sole reason on the basis of which the order of transfer has been passed. Annexure "CA-1" is dated 19th September, 1991, which is the complaint made by one Ram Shanker Saroj, who is a member of the subordinate security staff of the Naini Central Jail of which the petitioner is the Superintendent, in which it has been stated on 12th September, 1991, the complainant was assaulted by the petitioner and Sri R. K. Pandey, Jailor, and Sri Anirudh Prasad Rai, Deputy Jailor and, consequently, action was sought against the three persons for this act on the part of the officers. It has come in evidence before the appellate court that the complainant was responsible for making one Surendra Pasi abscond from the jail. He was, consequently, suspended by the petitioner on 13-9-1991 who is the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Naini, on the ground that it was a serious case of indiscipline on the part of the complainant. If an officer is transferred merely because a complaint is made by a subordinate against whom action had been taken by the officer superior to him, it cannot be called a valid basis for transfer. In case the complainant is found to be correct, it is open to the Government to take action against the officer concerned, but transfer is no solution to this problem. This action is likely to seriously affect the administration. In the instant case, it is further not disputed that only transfer order has been passed against the petitioner and no action has been taken aginst the two other persons who have been mentioned in the complaint dated 17th September, 1991, and against whom also, the allegation is that they had assaulted the complainant. In our opinion, consequently, the order of transfer is arbitrary and without any valid basis. In our opinion, consequently, the order of transfer is arbitrary and without any valid basis. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is, in any manner, invalid and needs interference in appeal. The special appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.