Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 29-9-1993 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, whereby and whereunder the earlier order of transfer dated 3-8-1993 passed by Respondent No. 3 has been cancelled. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. By an order dated 3-8-1993 as contained in Aunexure-1 to the writ application. Respondent No. 4 was transferred to the Government Teachers Training College, Turki on the post of Clerk. He was posted on 5-8-1993 by the Regional Deputy Director of Education. By an order dated 19-8-1993, the petitioner was posted in place of Respondent No. 4. On or about 26-8-1993 the said order of transfer is said to have been approved by the District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 26-8-1993 (Annexure-4 to the writ application). Respondent No. 4 was thereafter placed under suspension. 4. According to the petitioner, thereafter charge sheet was also issued as against Respondent No. 4 as would be evident from Annexure-5 to the writ application. However, it has been contended that Respondent No. 4 took recourse of political pairvi by one Anwar Ahmad as would be evident from Annexure-7 to the writ application and on the basis thereof, the transfer of Respondent No. 4 was directed to be cancelled. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that in this view of the matter, the impugned order must be held to be wholly illeged and without jurisdiction. The stand of Respondent No. 4 on the other hand is that this writ application is not maintainable as appeal lies against the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. It was further submitted that the order of transfer passed as against Respondent No. 4 by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division was wholly mala fide and for unauthorised purpose and for the purpose of victimising him. It was stated that Respondent .No. 3 was guilty of making illegal appointments of Clerks and peons, Respondent No. 4 was forced to hand over the concerned file on 24-6-1993 to the Collector and First Information Report was lodged as against Respondent No. 3 under Secs. It was stated that Respondent .No. 3 was guilty of making illegal appointments of Clerks and peons, Respondent No. 4 was forced to hand over the concerned file on 24-6-1993 to the Collector and First Information Report was lodged as against Respondent No. 3 under Secs. 468, 467, 419, 409 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, Respondent No. 3 evaded arrest and ultimately he was released on Anticipatory bail on 28-7-1993, whereafter he joined the office on 2-8-1993 and thereafter the order dated 3-8-1993 was passed. It was further stated that Respondent No. 3 relieved Respondent No. 4 on 5-8-1993 without allowing him 15 days time to joint his new posting. He was asked to submit explanation on 6-8-1993 and was suspended on 20-8-1993 without obtaining approval of the higher authority. It is stated that Respondent No. 3 also did not allow Respondent No. 4 to work in his office at Muzaffarpur in complete defiance of the order dated 29-9-1993. Respondent No. 4 has contended that as against the aforementioned order of Respondent, No. 3, he filed a representation before the Commissioner, which is contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit and the order of transfer was stayed. 6. It was further submitted that the purported approval obtained from the District Education Establishment Committee is illegal and in any event is merely an eye-wash, inasmuch as the Members who were to form the said Committee were not included therein. 7. Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer of Respondent No. 4 having been passed by the competent authority and having been approved by the District Education Establishment Committee, the same cannot be said to be illegal. 8. It was further submitted that it is not correct to state that Respondent No. 4 preferred any appeal before the Commissioner and the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 has been passed pursuant to and in furtherence thereof. It has further been submitted that from a perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the same has been passed on the dictates of the Chief Minister as therein the word Shashan has been used, which fact would further be verified from Annexure-7 to the writ application. It has further been submitted that from a perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the same has been passed on the dictates of the Chief Minister as therein the word Shashan has been used, which fact would further be verified from Annexure-7 to the writ application. It was further submitted that from perusal of the service Rules as contained in Annexure-F to the writ application, it would appear that no appeal lies against the order of transfer and in any event preferring an appeal against the impugned order is an empty formality inasmuch as the said order has been passed at the instance of the Chief Minister himself. 9. From the conspectus of events as mentioned hereinbefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the order of transfer was passed as against Respondent No. 4 by Respondent No. 3 mala fide and for Unauthorised purpose. 10. It is always not possible to prove mala fide by direct evidence but the circumstances of this case are so strong and telling that it is evident that the same has been passed not on administrative exigencies bat by way of vengience as against Respondent No. 4 by Respondent No. 3. In any event, there was absolutely no reason as to why the Respondent No. 3 would have passed such order on 3-8-1993 immediately after he joined on 2nd August, 1993. 11. It is also evident that by reason of the said order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, he has been directed to hand over charge within two days. Yet again on 5-8-1993 he had been relieved to join his new post. On 19-8-1993 the petitioner who had been holding a substantive post at Champaran as Head-Clerk has been directed to join at the vacant post of the petitioner. Further from a perusal of Annexure-F to the counter affidavit, it appears that Rule was framed under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Controlling Officer has been defined in Rule 2(gha) thereof to mean an officer designated in Rule 5 thereof as Controlling Officer. The Head of the Department is defined in Rule 2(dha) thereof. Part 5 of the said Rules also deals with transfer. It appears that for the purpose of appointment a Committee was to be constituted in different cadres. 12. The Head of the Department is defined in Rule 2(dha) thereof. Part 5 of the said Rules also deals with transfer. It appears that for the purpose of appointment a Committee was to be constituted in different cadres. 12. The said Committee is to comprise of the Regional Deputy Director as Chairman, seniormost Principal of the Government Teachers Training College and seniormost District Education Officer. However, from a perusal of Annexure-4 of the writ application, it appears that the following members would constituted the Committee. The District Education Officers of Champaran, East Champaran, Sitamarhi, Muzaffarpur, Vaishali, Sub-divisional Education Officer, Hajipur District, School Inspector, Hajipur and Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division as convenor. In view of the fact that the said Committee was not properly constituted, there cannot be any doubt that the impugned order of transfer is mala fide. 13. It is true that this Court looks down upon passing of an order of transfer made on the basis of political pairvi by the Chief Minister or any other Officer. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by this Court in Shri Bhogeshwar Jha V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1993 (1) Bihar Law Judgment 165. 14. It is further true that normally a transfer which has validly been made should not ordinarily be cancelled. It is also true that from a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, it is evident that the said order was not passed in terms of the representation made by Respondent No. 4 or on appeal preferred by him but on political pairvi. However, in this case, we are satisfied that Respondent No. 4 was more sinned than sinning as we are of the view that the order of transfer as contained in Annexure-3 was passed by Respondent No. 3 mala fide and further in view of the fact that purported approval granted by the Education Establishment Committees was also not legal. In our opinion, it is a fit case in which we should refuse to exercise our jurisdiction. 15. In our opinion, it is a fit case in which we should refuse to exercise our jurisdiction. 15. In Mahanth Motilal Goswami V/s. State of Bihar , this Court following the earlier decision in Promod Kumar V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1989(1) BLJR 147 : 1988 PLJR 923 as also Suku Mahto V/s. State of Bihar reported in (1992)2 PLJR 134 clearly held that issuance of a writ of certiorari is discretionary one and in a case when the Court finds that quashing of illegal order would revive another illegal order, the Court in appropriate cases may quash both orders or refuse to exercise its discretion. 16. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that it is not a fit case in which we would exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. This application is, therefore, dismissed. Gurusharan Sharma, J. 18 I agree.