Judgment N. Pandey and j. JJ. 1. This is an application under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for quashing the notification dated 10.10.1995, whereby, rabindra Prasad (respondent No.4) has been transferred in place of the petitioner as Block Development Officer, Salakhua, Saharsa. 2. It appears petitioners service was placed on deputation from the agriculture Department, to the Rural development Department. Thereafter, the Establishment Committee of the rural Development Department recommended the name of the petitioner along with 367 others for transfer and posting to the posts of Block Development officers: Consequent to such a recommendation the State Government vide notification dated 5.9.1995, contained in Annexure-1, transferred the petitioner to the post of Block development Officer at Salakhua. The petitioner, accordingly, joined at Salakhua and got charge of his office on 29.9.1995. 3. But unfortunately one Parmesh-war Prasad, a Member of Legislative Assembly, vide his letter dated 15-9-1995, contained in Annexure-7, informed the chief Minister since the area of Salakhua Prakhand was dominated by backward class people, the posting of the petitioner as Block Development Officer was not proper. He, therefore, requested that Rabindra Prasad (respondent No.4) be transferred and posted as Block Development Officer in place of the petitioner. 4. It is alleged that having regard to the request of the M. L. A. , the State government transferred respondent no.4 as Block Development Officer, salakhua, without appreciating that petitioner had already taken over the charge of the post. 5. Two different counter-affidavits : one on behalf of the State and the other on behalf of respondent No.4, have been filed. There is denial of the allegations that the impugned transfer had taken place at the behest of the M. L. A. According to them, the petitioner was not relieved from the Agriculture department at the time when the notification dated 5.9.1995 regarding his posting was issued. Therefore, his joining at Salakhua without being relieved from the Agriculture Department was unauthorised. Thus the Rural Development department had no option but to post Rabindra Prasad in place of the petitioner at Salakhua. 6. From the facts, noticed above, admittedly, the petitioner was transferred vide notification dated 5.9.1995 along with several others on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee of the Rural Development department. It is also admitted that his joining was accepted at Salakhua under the orders of the District Magistrate. 6. From the facts, noticed above, admittedly, the petitioner was transferred vide notification dated 5.9.1995 along with several others on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee of the Rural Development department. It is also admitted that his joining was accepted at Salakhua under the orders of the District Magistrate. It would further appear although by the impugned notification, respondent No.4 has been transferred as Block Development officer, Salakhua, but no order for petitioners posting was issued nor his posting at Salakhua was cancelled. From the letter of the M. L. A. , contained in annexure-7, there is no doubt that specific request was made to the Chief minister for posting of Rabindra Prasad against the post held by the petitioner since the area was dominated by backward community. 7. In the background of the facts, noticed above, only question relevant for determination is whether respondent no.4 has been posted in place of the petitioner at the request of the m. L. A and whether such a posting was proper particularly when the petitioner had already assumed charge on the basis of a general notification. I have noticed that on behalf of the State Government as well as respondent No.4 there has been denial that such a transfer had taken place at the request of the M. L. A. Therefore, in terms of the order of this court, the State Counsel produced entire file relating to transfer and posting of the petitioner as well as respondent no.4. Undisputedly the transfer of the petitioner as Block Development Officer, salakhua, was made on a proper recommendation of the Establishment committee. On the other hand, although a copy of the impugned notification regarding transfer of the respondent No.4 to the present place was kept on the file, but unfortunately neither there was any noting of the concerned department nor any order of approval of the competent authority regarding his transfer was available nor there was any recommendation of the establishment Committee for such transfer. 8. Therefore, having regard to the facts, noticed above, there cannot be any doubt that the impugned transfer has taken place simply at the request of the m. L. A It cannot be denied that a Member of Parliament of legislative Assembly being public representative will have complete prerogative to make a request for transfer of a government servant of his area on administrative ground in public interest. But such a request has to be examined by the government authorities dealing with the subject in the larger public interest. But it is not open to those representatives to suggest posting of a officer of their choice at a particular station. This question has already been considered by this court on several occasions including that in the case of Sri abdul Muttalib V/s. State of Bihar and ors. , 1985 P. L. J. R.931. 9. Apart from what has been noticed above, this also cannot be ignored that the petitioner had recently taken charge of the office of Block development Officer in compliance to the general notification, contained in annexure-1. Therefore, having regard to all the facts, noticed above, I have no option but to hold that the impugned transfer of respondent No.4 against the post, held by the petitioner, was for extraneous reasons and therefore, not proper. 10. For the reasons, stated above, the writ application is allowed and the impugned notification so far it concerns posting of respondent No.4 against the post held by the petitioner, stands quashed. Petition Allowed.