JUDGMENT 1. - The case was listed today on the application filed under Clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to vacate the interim order passed by this Court on 27.10.98. With the consent of the counsel, the petition is heard finally. 2. The instant writ petition has been field challenging the impugned transfer order dated 18.9.98 (Annexure 2) qua the petitioner, by which he has been transferred from Government Mahatma Gandhi Senior Secondary School, Jodhpur to the Government Senior Secondary School, Bap (district Jodhpur) and respondent No. 6 has been transferred in his place. 3. The ground of challenge is that the impugned order has been made during the election process and as per the orders issued by the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer of Rajasthan, the transfer order could not have been passed. The impugned order had been passed on 18.10.98, i.e., prior to the declaration of election and the election, being a temporary phrase, the ground does not survive as the election is at the verge of conclusion. As this Court had already stayed the operation of the impugned transfer order, the orders issued by the Chief Electoral Officer of Rajasthan has served its purpose. 4. The another ground of challenge, which has vehemently been argued by Mr. Shrimalee is that the transfer of the petitioner has been made at the behest of one Shri Rajendra Singh Gehlot, the Minister in the Government of Rajasthan. The allegation of malafide against Shri Rajendra Singh Gehlot requires to be considered in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Chand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 567 , E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 4555 , M/s. Sukhvindrapal Vipan Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 65 , Shivaji Rao Nilangar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosain, AIR 1987 SC 294 , M. Shakranarayan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1993 SC 763 , and N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others, 1994 (6) SCC 98 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the burden of establishing malafide lies very heavily on the person, who alleges it and the person who alleges such allegation, must establish the same by substantiating it with sufficient evidence. There has to be very strong and convincing evidence to establish the allegation of malafide for the reason that there is a presumption in favour of the bonafides of the order unless contradicted by acceptable material. (Vide State of U.P. v. Dr. V.N. Prasad, 1995 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 151 , and Arvind Datrate Dhandhe v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1997 (6) SCC 169 ). 5. In the instant case, the allegations of malafide had been alleged against the Hon'ble Minister of the State of Rajasthan without being any material to substantiate the same and it is most unfair on the part of the petitioner to make such wild allegations without impleading the State Minister in the petition. Thus, the issue of malafide cannot be taken into consideration. (Vide State of Bihar and another v. P.P Sharma and others, 1992 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 222 , Dr. J.N. Banuwalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 326 , All India Bank Officers Federation and others v. Union of India and others, 1996 (8) JT 550 , and I.K. Mishra v. Union of India and others, 1997 (6) SCC 228 ). 6. Thus, in view of the above, the grounds, on which the transfer order has been challenged, do not survive and the petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned transfer order, he can move a representation before the Competent Authority within one week from today and if he does so, the Authority is directed to decide it within the period of two weeks thereafter. For a period of three weeks, the status quo, as regards the posting of the petitioner, shall be maintained. However, it is clarified further that the Authority shall not brush-aside the grievances of the petitioner being personal in nature. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******