Judgment A.K.Ganguly, J. 1. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this writ-petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself by passing the following order: The petitioner has impugned in this writ-petition, an order 28th June, 1995 by which his previous order of transfer dated 30th June, 1994 from Ranchi to Patna as an Assistant Engineer in the office of the Chief Engineer, Patna was sought to be cancelled. 2. The petitioners case is that the previous order of transfer dates 30th June, 1994 (Annexure-3) has been passed in respect of a large number of persons and the petitioners name figures at serial No. 95 in the said list. Pursuant to the said order of transfer dated 30.6.1994 the petitioner has joined at Patna and has settled down here and has been given a posting. Now all on a sudden the impugned order dated 28th June, 1995 has been passed in respect of the petitioner only cancelling the previous order of transfer dated 30th June, 1994. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Under-Secretary in the Department of water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna it has been stated that the petitioner was to remain in the Zone of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Ranchi from where he was transferred by order dated 30th June, 1994 for a period of six years. As such the petitioners turn for being transferred out of Ranchi Zone would have arisen after 20th January, 1997 as per policy decision of the Water Resources Development Department contained in letter No. 272, dated 2nd November, 1991. It has further been stated in the stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner has managed his transfer from the Zone of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Ranchi to the Zone of the Chief Engineer, Patna by an order dated 30th June, 1994. 4. This Court is unable to understand what is meant by saying that the petitioner has managed such order of transfer. It is nobodys case that the petitioner had made any representation for such transfer. 4. This Court is unable to understand what is meant by saying that the petitioner has managed such order of transfer. It is nobodys case that the petitioner had made any representation for such transfer. Even though it is accepted that an order of transfer from one Zone to another Zone is to be passed after the expiry of the period of six years, learned Counsel for the respondents could not take the stand that no body prior to the said period of 6 years has been or could be transferred. In that view of the matter, this Court does not accept the contention of the respondents that simply because the petitioner has been transferred from Ranchi to Patna after three years of his stay at Ranchi, he has managed such a transfer. No material has been disclosed in support of the said assertion that the petitioner has managed his order of transfer This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents. This Court is of the view that even though in the matter of transfer the administration should be given sufficient freedom, at the same time it is clear that in the name of transfer the administration cannot indulge in passing such orders on the mere whims and fancy of the authority concerned. On perusal of the materials on record it appears that such order of cancellation of the previous order of transfer, after one year its passing is rather whimsical to this Court. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court interferes and quashes the impugned order dated 28th June, 1995 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to cost.