Judgment S.N.Sinha, J. 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 9-12-1991 issued by the Deputy Director of Secondary Education purported to be on behalf of the Director of Secondary Education where by the respondent No. 7 has been directed to continue to work as Assistant Teacher in R. Mitra Inter School, Deoghar and the petitioner has been adjusted in Sashibhusan Roy High School, Deoghar. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in R. Mitra Inter School, Deoghar, wherein he joined on 13-2-1974. The petitioner subsequently did his M.A. in English and also did his M.A. in Hindi. The said R. Mitra Inter School has been converted into (Plus) 2 school in 1986 and the petitioner was made the Head of the Deptt. of English. The petitioner subsequently was sent on deputation in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Mirjapur, Begusarai for a period of three years. Allegedly, the respondent No. 7 was appointed against the vacant post of the petitioner wherein she joined on 11-2-1991. The said appointment was subject to the condition that when the petitioner would return upon completion of the period of deputation the respondent No. 7 will have to be adjusted somewhere. This fact emerged from a letter dated 13-2-1991 issued by the principal of the said school, addressed to the Deputy Director of Education as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. The petitioner on completion of a period of deputation intended to join the said R. Mitra Inter School, Deoghar and he was posted there whereas the respondent No. 7 was transferred to the vacant post at R. L. Saraff High School, Deoghar, which allegedly is situated in the town of Deoghar itself and which is at a minutes walking distance from the said school. The said order is contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application. The petitioner joined the said R. Mitra Inter School. According to the petitioner the District Education Officer, however has hatched a conspiracy as against the petitioner and directed the principal, R. Mitra Inter School, Deoghar for not releieving the respondent No. 7. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 is very close relative of respondent No. 7 as husband of respondent No. 7 is also posted there. According to the petitioner the District Education Officer, however has hatched a conspiracy as against the petitioner and directed the principal, R. Mitra Inter School, Deoghar for not releieving the respondent No. 7. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 is very close relative of respondent No. 7 as husband of respondent No. 7 is also posted there. It is further stated that elder brother of respondent No. 4 is also posted on the post of District Education Officer, Deoghar. The petitioner as such smelt a foul play, filed a representation on 8-10-1991 which is contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application. 4. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is illegal as the order of posting has been passed by the authority who is not competent to pass the said order and further the same has been passed in order to accommodate the respondent No. 7. 5. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No, 7 wherein inter alia it has been contended that the period of deputation of the petitioner was two years but he made an interpolation in Annexure-4 to the writ application. It was further contended that respondent No. 7 was appointed by the School Service Commission and he was posted in R. Mitra High School as her husband is also an Assistant Teacher there. 6. According to the respondent No. 7, when on the expiry of the period of deputation the petitioner was again posted at R. Mitra Inter School. She filed a representation where upon the impugned order has been passed. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken us to various documents in order to show that normally the period of deputation of Navodya Vidyalya is always for three years and that is the reason whereever the printed figure two occurred, the same has been changed to figure three. 8. It was further submitted that the petitioners lien was in the R. Mitra Inter School and thus he has to be posted thereon the expiry of the period of deputation. 9. It has further been contended that the school in question being are + (plus) 2 school and the petitioner being the Head of the English Department, he has a better prospects there. 9. It has further been contended that the school in question being are + (plus) 2 school and the petitioner being the Head of the English Department, he has a better prospects there. Further the principal at Simara School is about 10 years junior to him and he is only a graduate, whereas the petitioner, has a higher education qualification. 10. In this case the question as to whether the original period of deputation is for two or three years, although is a disputed question but the same need not detain us in view of the fact that on a combined reading of Ann-exures-4 and 7, it will be evident that the period of deputation was for three years. 11. However, from a perusal of the relieving order as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, it appears that the petitioners lien was to be kept for a period of three years on the post held by him in that institution. It further states that in case of reversion from the Samiti before and after expiry of the deputation period, the petitioner was to be taken back on the same post held by him. 12. If the assertions of the petitioner are correct that he was deputed for a period of three years, there cannot be any doubt that in terms of the relieving letter issued by the Head Master of R. Mitra High School, which was Inter alia been counter signed by the District Education Officer, Deoghar, Bihar, the petitioner is entitled to rejoin R. Mitra High School on the expiry of the period of deputation. This facts also finds support from Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ application. 13. From a perusal where of, it appears that the principal on 11-2-1991 categorically stated that no salary can be given to respondent No. 7 after joining the petitioner and in Annexure-7 it has been stated that the respondent No. 7 was appointed for a period from 9-9-90 to 9-9-91 in place of Bisheshwar Singh (petitioner) and on his return, the respondent No. 7 will have to be adjusted in some other school. 14. 14. It is, therefore, clear from the letter dated 13-7-1991 as contained in Annexure-7 to the counter affidavit which is a clear proof of the fact that the petitioner had a lien in the instituion for a period of three years as is evident from Annexures-4 and 7 to the writ application. 15. The respondent No. 7 was posted in the said school for a limited period and subject to the condition that upon return of the petitioner she will have to be adjusted at another school. 16. The state as also the respondent No. 7 are bound by that condition. The respondent No. 7 having accepted the condition for her posting, is estopped and precluded from resiling therefrom and make a representation that she be allowed to continue in R. Mitra High School. It is further evident that the petitioner had joinded R. Mitra High School on 30th September, 1991 in terms of the order dated 28th September, 1991. 17. It is, therefore, not at all appreciated as to how the respondent No. 7 was not relieved by the principal of the said school. The sequence of events as noticed hereinbefore is suggestive of the fact that statements made by the petitioner to the effect that the impugned order has been passed at the instance of the respondent No. 4 who is a relation of the respondent No. 7 and further in view of the fact that elder brother of the husband of the respondent No. 7 is a District Education Officer appears to be correct. 18. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7 has contended that as husband of the respondent No. 7 is also posted in the same school she has a right to continue there. 19. The submission of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted as in terms of the circulars, issued by the State, the husband and wife may be posted in the same town In view of the fact that the school where she has been transferred is situated in the town of Deoghar itself and which is one minutes distance from R. Mitra School, the respondent No. 7 in our opinion would not suffer any injury whatsoever if the impugned order is quashed. 20. It is now well known that the transfer is an incidence of service. 20. It is now well known that the transfer is an incidence of service. However if an order of transfer suffers from malice whether on fact or in law the same cannot be sustained. In this case in terms of the order of deputation itself the petitioner held a lien to the post of a teacher in R. Mitra School, Deoghar. He thus had acquired a right, in terms of the conditions of deputation which cannot be taken away in an abitrary manner. Such a right of the petitioner cannot be taken away in order to accommodate the respondent No. 7. 21. Further as noticed hereinbefore, the respondent No. 7 was posted against a vacant post vice the petitioner. She understood the condition of her posting and that she would be posted in the said school till the petitioner rejoins. 22. In this contex, it is evident that the respondent No. 7 was adjusted in another school (in R. L. Saraff School) which is situated in the town of Deoghar itself. 23. Having considered the fact of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that impugned Annexure-12 of the writ application had been passed only in order to accommadate the respondent No. 7 and thus the same cannot be sustained. However, this order may not be construed that the petitioner has a right to continue in the school in question inasmuch as he may be transferred, as and when any occasion arises therefor is accordance with law. 24. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application is quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 25. I agree.