M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) ). The respondent Dr. R. B. Desmukh filed Civil Suit No. 43 of 1993 along with an application for temporary injunction against the order dated 1 served upon him on 5-1-1993 transferring him from Ahmedabad to Baroda. The respondent holds the Degree of M. D. (Forensic Medicine) and was appointed as Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine and was posted as such on 2- 12-1981 in B. J. Medical College at Ahmedabad. He was then selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC for short) for the post of Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine in the year 1985 and was then selected for the post of Professor of Forensic Medicine by GPSC in the year 1987. While he was posted and working as Professor in Forensic Medicine at Ahmedabad he was transferred from Ahmedabad to Baroda by the order dated 1-1-1993. The respondent challenged the aforesaid transfer order on the grounds of mala fides stating that the order had been passed arbitrarily and for collateral purposes and in his place one Dr. D. G. Desai who was only Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine was given the charge of the post of Professor which was held by him. Forensic Medicine Professor was posted in B. J. Medical College Ahmedabad vice the respondent. There is no dispute that Dr. D. G. Desai holds appointment in (Forensic Medicine as Associate Professor and the dispute which has been raised is about his qualification in Forensic Medicine cannot be collaterally challenged in these proceedings because he holds the appointment as Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine. The case of the respondent is that while he was discharging his duties as Professor in Forensic Medicine at B. J. Medical College of Ahmedabad he incurred displeasure of a local MLA namely Shri Vithalbhai Patel. He has given two other incidents also and has narrated three incidents in all as under: (i) That on 16th January 1992 one dead body was brought to the Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination vide post-mortem case N. 118 of 1992. The respondent was required to take Viscera but the local MLA sent to him a note for not taking Viscera of the dead body and since he did not accede to this request the MLA was annoyed and his transfer order had been passed at the MLAs instance. The respondent was required to take Viscera but the local MLA sent to him a note for not taking Viscera of the dead body and since he did not accede to this request the MLA was annoyed and his transfer order had been passed at the MLAs instance. (ii) That on 31st October 1991 dead body of one Ketan Mehta was brought to the Civil Hospital at about 7. 00 p. m. and the respondent was not prepared to carry out the post-moterm after sunset because normally the post-mortem is not conducted after sunset except in unusual circumstances and that too when there are specific instructions from the higher authorities He had therefore sought written instructions from the higher authorities and thus he incurred the displeasure of the higher authorities and for this act he was also required to show cause and furnish his explanation. The refusal of the respondent to carry out the post-moterm examination after sunset without written instructions hurt the defendants and it was also a contributory factor to his transfer. (iii) A controversy arose about issuance of an injury certificate for one Ms. Veena Singh which was to be given as per the injuries noticed by him and he refused to give the certificate as desired by said Ms. Veena Singh and therefore she had filed a complaint against him and the same was also made use of by the higher authorities to transfer him from Ahmedabad to Baroda. ( 2 ) ). The case of appellant herein i. e. the defendants in the Suit as pleaded before the trial Court was that so far as the aforesaid occurrences leading to the allegations levelled against the respondents are concerned there was no dispute but it was contended that none of the said occurrences had weighed with the defendants while passing the impugned order of transfer and that the transfer order had been passed on administrative grounds as well as public interest. ( 3 ) ). ( 3 ) ). The trial Court considered the matter and it has referred to and quoted the note sent by the MLA concerned to the respondent has also noticed that the respondent had not acted in accordance with the note sent by the MLA for not examining the Viscera and it has been recorded in the order of the trial Court that the plaintiff being fully aware of the object of the post-moterm examination and his duties did not accede to the desire of the political leader wherefrom it can be safely inferred that the MLA having failed to prove effectiveness and supremacy must have motivated the authorities for the impugned transfer of the plaintiff and that it was a glaring example of penalty mala fide and arbitrariness. It has also been held that the plaintiff (respondent herein) was justified in refusing to perform the post-mortem examination after sunset and that this incident had given rise to the controversy in the department and the possibility cannot be ruled out that it may have been used as a ground for his transfer. On the basis of the documents Exhs. 3710 and 3211 the trial Court has held that the plaintiff-respondent had been prima facie able to prove the allegation regarding injury certificate of Ms. Veena Singh as the near relative of Ms. Veena Singh had made a complaint to the Government on the basis of which the inquiry was initiated against the respondent and Dr. D. R. Kothari Head of the Department Forensic Medicine was required to investigate into the matter and that his allegation was substantiated by the documentary evidence which was not denied by the appellant-defendants. However in this inquiry no action was taken. What were the administrative grounds or the public interest to transfer the respondent had not been disclosed. It has also been recorded in the trial Courts order that in the current academic year at the time of the transfer of the respondent five students were enrolled in the Forensic Medicine as against it at the place of transfer i. e. Baroda there was no facility for imparting education for post-graduate students in Forensic Medicine. ( 4 ) ). THE trial Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the notice of motion Exh. ( 4 ) ). THE trial Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the notice of motion Exh. 5/6 and the interim relief in terms of para 5 (A) of the notice of motion was directed to remain in force during the pendency of the suit and the resolution dated 1st January 1991 and the consequential order dated 5th January 1993 were stayed. ( 5 ) ). AGAINST the order dated 5th January 1993 passed by the trial Court below Exh. 5 the present appeal was preferred by the appellants and when this appeal came up before this Court on 12th March 1993 the following order was passed on the Civil Application. Civil Application No. 964 of 1994 appeal FROM ORDER No. 70 on 1993 s. D. Shah J. ORDER: rule Heard Mr. R. M. Chhaya learned Assistant Government Pleader for the applicants and Mr. M. B. Gandhi learned Counsel for the respondent. The trial Court has by its impugned judgment and order granted application of the original plaintiff for stay of his transfer from Ahmedabad to Baroda. At the request of Mr. M. B. Gandhi learned Counsel for the respondent plaintiff without giving any reasons the order passed by the trial Court is stayed during the pendency of this Appeal and hearing of the Appeal is expedited. Since some hardship is likely to cause to the respondent-plaintiff it is directed that respondent-plaintiff shall be permitted to undertake up and down journey from Ahmedabad to Baroda and he may be permitted to occupy residential quarter at Ahmedabad and about the non-granting of leave of the respondent-plaintiff it is directed that he shall make a representation to the appellants and the appellants shall consider his application for leave sympathetically so that an employee is not required to make any grievance that his application for leave is not being lawfully considered. (S. D. SHAH J.) Under these circumstances the respondent joined as Professor in Forensic Medicine at the new place of his posting on 12th March 1993 itself and during the pendency of this appeal he is working as Professor in Forensic Medicine at the Medical College Baroda. (S. D. SHAH J.) Under these circumstances the respondent joined as Professor in Forensic Medicine at the new place of his posting on 12th March 1993 itself and during the pendency of this appeal he is working as Professor in Forensic Medicine at the Medical College Baroda. Whereas the respondent had to carry out the transfer order and he was working at Baroda since March 1993 and a considerable time had lapsed when the appeal came up for final hearing on 23rd January 1995 both the sides wanted to place the subsequent facts on record and Mr. Uraisee. Learned Assistant Government Pleader wanted to file an affidavit as to whether the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine at B. J. Medical College Ahmedabad was still lying vacant or not time was granted upto 30th January 1995. The matter was argued on 1st February 1995 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader requested for time to take instructions because it was given out that even by this time no Profess or was posted at Ahmedabad in place of the respondent and while aforesaid Dr. D. G. Desai. Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine was holding the charge of the Department of Forensic Medicine yet another Associate Professor Dr. R. S. Bhise was working as Associate Professor against the post of Professor which was available at Ahmedabad on account of the respondents joining at Baroda. It was therefore suggested that the Government may consider to post any Professor against this post at Ahmedabad. For this purpose time was granted on 1-2-1995 upto 10 and again upto 16-2-1995. ( 6 ) ). ON 16-2-1995 it was given out by learned Assistant Government Pleader that in the State of Gujarat as against four posts of Professors only three Professors in Forensic Medicine including the respondent are available and they are working at Surat Baroda and Jamnagar. However the suggestions that out of the existing three Professors in Forensic Medicine anyone may be posted as Professor in Forensic Medicine at Ahmedabad was not agreed even after taking sufficient time to consider the same and Mr. However the suggestions that out of the existing three Professors in Forensic Medicine anyone may be posted as Professor in Forensic Medicine at Ahmedabad was not agreed even after taking sufficient time to consider the same and Mr. Uraizee learned Assistant Government Pleader under the instructions from the Officers of the Department has orally submitted that at the time when the respondent was transferred to Baroda the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine was lying vacant at Baroda for which there was an objection by the Medical Council of India and therefore the respondent had to be transferred but it is not disputed that this objection now stands directed against Ahmedabad instead of Baroda. ( 7 ) ). I have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Uraizee for the appellants and learned Counsel Mr. M. B. Gandhi for the respondent. Mr. Uraizee has contended that it was a transfer order passed on administrative grounds and public interest and he has also argued that the allegations of mala fide cannot be gone into because the respondent had not impleaded the persons against whom the allegations mala fides have been levelled as parties. ( 8 ) ). THE basis for saying that the transfer order had been passed for administrative reasons or the reasons of public interest has not been disclosed. So far as the contention of Mr. Uraizee learned Assistant Government Pleader that the persons against whom the allegations of mala fides have been levelled have not been impleaded as parties by name and therefore the same cannot be gone into it will be sufficient to say that in such a matter it would be placing a heavy and intolerable burden on the plaintiffrespondent to name any particular officer and as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Punjab v. Ramji Lal and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 1228 as and when the validity of the State-action is under challenge on the grounds of mala fides the allegations of mala fides have to be considered on the basis of the materials placed on record and in such case it is not necessary to name any particular individual. In this view of the matter the allegations on which the respondent-plaintiff challenged the impugned prder have to be considered. In this view of the matter the allegations on which the respondent-plaintiff challenged the impugned prder have to be considered. in the light of the factual averments made in this regard taking note of the attendant and preceding circumstances. The trial Court has found that the factual allegations levelled by the plaintiff against the defendants were not in dispute. What were the facets of administractive reasons and public interest had also not been disclosed and a prima facie case was found to be in favour of the respondent-plaintiff by the trial Court. The ground that the Medical Council of India objects to the post lying vacant continues to subsist even after the respondents joining at Baroda because one out of four Medical Colleges in Gujarat would remain vacant unless there are four Professors in Forensic Medicine because there are four Government Medical Colleges in Gujarat. In this view of the matter there is no basis to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Court on this aspect of the matter. The argument that accordingly to the Medical Council of India the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine should not be allowed to remain vacant is very much available for that purpose even with regard to the Medical College at Ahmedabad at present because one Associate Professor is working against the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine. Earlier i. e. immediately after the respondent was transferred to Baroda Dr. D. G. Desai Associate Professor was working against the post of Professor which was earlier held by the respondent and Dr. Desai continues to hold the charge of the Department of Forensic Medicine and yet another Associate Professor namely Dr. R. S. Bhise has been posted. One fails to understand as to what useful purpose could be served by transferring any Professor in Forensic Medicine from one place to another place because the Department at one of the Medical Colleges will continue to fall short of one Professor in Forensic Medicine in the State of Gujarat unless one more appointment of Professor in Forensic Medicine is made. In this view of the matter the facets of the administrative reasons or public interest with reference to the objections of the Medical Council of India cannot be sustained and the facts and circumstances in totality including the admitted factual position with regard to the three incidents complained of by the respondent do indicate that the transfer order prima facie appears to have been passed because the respondent did not concede to the demands of the political leader and other pressures and because he had protested against the interference in the matter of discharge of his duties as Professor in Forensic Medicine and accordingly prima facie the transfer order appears to have been passed for extraneous reasons for reasons which cannot be said to be germane and for collateral purposes. MLA has no business to send a note not to take Viscera in post-moterm case. The plea of public interest cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine at Ahmedabad is still vacant it has throughout been managed by an Associate Professor after the respondent joined at Baroda and it is again strange that the Associate Professor Dr. Bhise who is presently working against the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine has admittedly not even acquired the eligibility to be appointed as Professor. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that very shortly he would be acquiring the eligibility for the post of Professor in Forensic Medicine and would be appointed as such is preposterous. Thus the continuance of an Associate Professor against the post of Professor who is yet to attain the minimum requirements for the post of Professor and the objection of the Medical Council of India with regard to the absence of a Professor in Forensic Medicine being equally available for Baroda as well as Ahmedabad one is left to conclude prima facie that the stand of the appellants-defendants at least lacks bona fides. The impugned transfer order was passed in the mid of the academic session and had a telling effect on the education prospects of the post-graduate students and therefore the trial Court has rightly held that it was opposed to public interest and a case of irreparable loss and the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for passing the injunction order. ( 9 ) ). ( 9 ) ). FOR the aforesaid reasons I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed and whereas the respondent had joined at Baroda during the pendency of this appeal in terms contained in the order of this Court passed on 12th March 1993 and now that the trial Courts order has been upheld the appellants would pass appropriate orders restoring the position of the respondent back at Ahmedabad in terms of the order passed by the trial Court and the respondent shall be relegated back to the position which he was holding prior to his joining at Baroda and appropriate order in this regard shall be issued as early as possible but in no case later than 1st March. No order as to costs. .