JUDGMENT : - A.K.Banerji 1. BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2-11-1992, passed by respondent No. 1. Cancelling the transfer order of the petitioner dated 14-10-1992, and re-transferring the petitioner to the place of his last posting. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to appoint any other person on the post of secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Sandmiti, Bareilly. 2. BRIEF facts are that the petitioner was working in the post of Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. In the year 1990, the petitioner was posted as Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Aligarh After a stay of over one year at Aligarh, the petitioner was transferred to Mathura and hereafter, to Hathras in the year 1992. The petitioner had only worked for about three months at Hathras when vide order dated 24-10-1992, he was transferred to the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly. The petitioner was relieved at Hathras on 23-10-1992 and joined at Bareilly on 24-10-1992 where he submitted the joining report. The petitioner was served with the Impugned order dated 2-11-1992 informing him that his transfer order dated 14-10 1992, transferring him to Bareilly, has been cancelled and he should revert back to Hathras, It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition on the ground that the order was malafide and due to political pressure, besides after the petitioner had joined at Bareilly, the transfer order had exhausted itself and the same could not be cancelled and the petitioner reverted back to the last place of his posting. The order has also been challenged on the: ground as arbitrary, unfair and bad as no reasons have been given for cancelling the transfer order. On 20-11-1992, this Court while entertaining the writ petition granted two weeks' time to Shri B. D. Mandhyan learned 'counsel for the respondents for filing the counter affidavit and directed the matter to be listed for admission on 6-1- 1993. This Court also passed an order to the effect that if the petitioner has joined as Secretary, Krishi Unpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly, he shall be permitted to continue to function as Secretary. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have since been exchanged between the parties. The counsel for the petitioner has also filed supplementary affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit in support of his petition. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have since been exchanged between the parties. The counsel for the petitioner has also filed supplementary affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit in support of his petition. I have heard Shri Mahesh Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the record of the writ petition. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage itself. 3. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged that the impugned order cancelling the transfer order dated, 14-10-1992, by which the petitioner was posted at Bareilly, was passed malafide due to the political pressure and as the Agricultural Minister wanted his own man to be posted at Bareilly. He has also contended that the petitioner was transferred from Hathras to Bareilly in public interest but the order cancelling the petitioner's transfer order does not disclose any reasons as to why the said order was cancelled. Besides, once the transfer order was passed and the petitioner had Joined at Bareilly, the transfer order had exhausted itself and the same could not be cancelled. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon certain decisions of our Court as well as the Supreme Court. 4. ON the other hands, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order transferring the petitioner from Hathras to Bareilly was by oversight and due to, a bonafide mistake as Bareilly was a Class I Mandi and only senior persons could be posted at the said place. The petitioner was in the Class III category of Secretaries and, therefore, under some mistake he was posted in the Class I Mandi of Bareilly and for that reason, the transfer order was cancelled and he was reverted back at Hathras which was the place of last posting The learned counsel had further contended that in such circumstances, no reasons were required to be given and neither it was necessary to mention that the order cancelling the transfer order was on account of public interest. It was further urged that the allegations of mala-fide are absolutely incorrect and without any basis. It was further urged that the allegations of mala-fide are absolutely incorrect and without any basis. I have carefully considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties It cannot be in dispute that transfer is an incident and concomitant of service and is not to be interfered with by the Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India save in cases where it is against any statutory mandatory rules or is malafide or made in colourable exercise of power with a view to harass the employee. It Is sole and exclusive discretion of the appropriate Government to transfer and post its employees where it is necessary to do so considering administrative reasons and in public interest, but this power has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner and not arbitrarily (See E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 ; V. Vardha Rao v. The State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955 , Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 ; Union of India v. S. L. Abbas, JT 1993 (3) SC 678). 5. IN the Instant case, the petitioner has contended that his transfer to Bareilly was cancelled for malafide reasons due to the political pressure and as the Agricultural Minister wanted his own man to be posted at Bareilly. This is one of the grounds on which the impugned order has been challenged. The respondent, have however, denied the said allegations. I am of the view that it is not necessary for the purpose of the present writ petition to go into such disputed questions. The writ petition is liable to succeed on other grounds. 6. IT has not been denied by the respondent that the petitioner was transferred within three months of his posting at Hathras to Bareilly where he had joined on 24-10-1992 and within ten days of his joining he was served with an order, cancelling the order of transfer dated 14-10-1992 and re-posting him to Hathras. A Division Bench of our Court In the case of Smt. Beena Tripathi v. State of U. P., 1987 (5) LCD 253, has laid down that after the employee has joined the place to which he was transferred, it is not open to the Government to cancel the transfer order. A Division Bench of our Court In the case of Smt. Beena Tripathi v. State of U. P., 1987 (5) LCD 253, has laid down that after the employee has joined the place to which he was transferred, it is not open to the Government to cancel the transfer order. The facts of the said case are that the transfer order was passed on 5-8-1986 and in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner joined alt Gonda on 7-8-1986. By the impugned order dated 18-8-1986, the earlier order; of transfer was cancelled. The Division Bench held that the petitioner had already taken over charge at Gonda and as such the transfer order could not have [been cancelled. A similar view had been taken by two Division Benches of our Court in the case of Indra Bahadur Singh v. Basic Shiksha Parishad and others (Writ, Petition No. 2028 of 1985 decided by the Lucknow Bench on 10-5-1985 and writ petition No, 2205 of 1985 Hans Raj and another v. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Decided on 20-5-1985 by another Division Bench at (Lucknow). The Division Bench Decision in the case of Smt. Beena Tripathi (supra) was followed by a learned Single Judge of our Court in Writ Petition No. 30566 of 1993. Ranjit Mal v. State of U.P. and another and by a Division Bench of our Court in Special Appeal No. 593 of 1993. K. N. Gaglot v. State of U. P. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, the submission made by the learned counsel that the petitioner having joined at Bareilly in pursuance of the transfer order and the same having given effect to, the order had exhausted and the same could not be cancelled, has to be accepted. Apart from what has been said above. I am also of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained as no reasons have been given therein as to why it became necessary to cancel the order of transfer. It is note- worthy that in the transfer order dated 14-10-1992 transferring the petitioner and three other persons to different Mandi Samities, it was stated that the transfer was made in public interest. However, in the order dated 2-11-1992 cancelling the transfer order, no reasons have been given at all. It is note- worthy that in the transfer order dated 14-10-1992 transferring the petitioner and three other persons to different Mandi Samities, it was stated that the transfer was made in public interest. However, in the order dated 2-11-1992 cancelling the transfer order, no reasons have been given at all. The Supreme Court in the case of S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, JT 1990 (3) SO 630, has laid down as follows : 'The recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes changes of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decision* and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal revision or judicial review." 7. THE learned counsel for the respondent has, however, contended that in the counter affidavit, the reasons for passing the impugned order has been clearly stated and it was not necessary to give any reasons in the order itself as it was not a transfer order but only a rectification of a mistake. I am unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is now well settled that validity of the older passed by the authorities has to be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reason in the form of affidavit or pleading of the parties (see Mohinder Singh Gil v. THE Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 . 8. THE Seamed counsel for the respondents has strongly urged that Bareilly was a Special Class. Mandi and only the senior Secretaries could be posted at such Mandis, As the petitioner was In Class III category, therefore, his posting at Bareilly was due to some oversight or mistake. Such order can be corrected by the authorities concerned, and the decision cited by the petitioner are, therefore, distinguishable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the various paragraphs in the rejoinder affidavit as wall as in the supplementary affidavit and the supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed by the (petitioner in which it has been mentioned that an amendment has been brought about in the U. P. Agriculture produce Market Committee (Centralised Service) Regulation in the year 1991 and by virtue of which any Class of Secretary can be appointed now in any Mandi. This amendment has been given effect to by the respondent, Inasmuch as even persons junior to the petitioner has been posted in Class I Mandis, It has been stated that one Ram Pal Singh Gaur belonged to the same Class as petitioner and has been transferred by the same order dated 14-10-1992 to Agra which is a Class I Mandi Similarly, one P N. Saxena who was the junior most Secretary was posted by the same order at Pilibhit which is Special Class Mandi Sri Aftab Ahmad who was a Secretary of the category of Class IV has been appointed at Shajahanpur which is also a Special Class Mandi; Shri C. N. Pathak who was at serial No. 23 in the seniority list in which the petitioner was shown at serial No. 12 has been posted at Allahabad which again in Class I Mandi. Shri Mewa Ram who was the senior most Secretary and posted at Bareilly earlier has now been transferred to Jaleshwas Road which is of Class IV category. On this basis the petitioner has contended that there is absolutely no substance In the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the posting of the petitioner was made by oversight or mistake. THE petitioner has also contended that for the period, the petitioner is; working at Bareilly, the income of the Mandi has gone up by over 40% and, therefore, it was wrong to state that the petitioner could not handle a Mandi of the size at Bareilly. Despite these clear averments made in the supplementary affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and the rejoinder supplementary affidavit, the opposite party has controverted the same, though they had sufficient time to controvert the allegations made, if they so desired. In the absence of any material to controvert the allegation made in the rejoinder affidavit and In the other affidavits filed by the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted. As a result of the aforesaid discussions the writ petition succeeds and is allowed The Impugned order dated 12-1-1992 cancelling the petitioner's transfer order dated 14-10-1992 is hereby quashed. However, it shall be open to the authorities concerned to pass fresh transfer order if the exigencies of the service so require and the same be in public interest. The parties shall bear their own costs of the petition. Petition allowed.