JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who was working as a Personnel Officer in the Bank of Baroda having appointed on 5.1.1979 had worked in Eastern Region, again in Southern Region, Ajmer Region from December 1981 to September 1984, Jodhpur Region from September 1984 to 1st January 1986, again in Ajmer Region from 2.1.1986 to 7.4.1987, again in Jodhpur region from April 1987 to May 1989, RRB Cell 20 Jaipur from May 1989 to July 1991, again in Jaipur Region from July 1991 to December, 1993 and in M.I. Road, Jaipur from January 1994 to June 1997. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was not being promoted from the post of Personnel Officer, and therefore, per force he filed a writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1145/88 against his non-promotion and because of that reason the authorities got offended and immediately transferred the petitioner to Ajmer Region details of which have been mentioned above. He represented against such transfer. It is stated that the petitioner was not medically feeling fit, he had slipped disc since 1984 and was being treated in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. He is to attend the S.M.S. Hospital regularly. It is stated that he is also having High Blood Pressure causing uneasiness and tension. 3. Apart from above, because of the tension created the petitioner had even developed heart problem. His wife is working at Jaipur as Lecturer which is non-transferable post. It is submitted that he needs constant care. The petitioner had represented that he should be kept at Jaipur and taking circumstances of the petitioner it was decided by the respondents to keep the petitioner at Jaipur and the transfer orders posting him away from Jaipur were cancelled. However, in the year 1992 he was asked to report to Meerut. He again represented vide Annexure-6. His representation was accepted and he was asked to report at Jaipur vide Annexure-7. The petitioner was again transferred to Meerut zone vide order dated 6.1.1997 which invited another representation to be sent to the respondents on 5.2.1997 and recommendations were made for cancelling his transfer. The representation is attached as Annexure-9. His transfer was cancelled vide order dated 3.6.1997. The petitioner reported back to Jaipur on 19.6.1997, but again on 21.6.1997 the petitioner has been transferred to Sawai Madhopur vide order dated 23/24.6.1997 vide Annexure-10. 4. The representation is attached as Annexure-9. His transfer was cancelled vide order dated 3.6.1997. The petitioner reported back to Jaipur on 19.6.1997, but again on 21.6.1997 the petitioner has been transferred to Sawai Madhopur vide order dated 23/24.6.1997 vide Annexure-10. 4. Apart from above, the medical status of the petitioner had been depicted in para 11 which reads as under: Dated 22.7.80: Right Kidney Report- Poor functioning because of it there is lot of fluctuations in B.P. Continuously which causes stress upon the heart. Dated 9.3.84: Report of Slipped Disc Continuing problem and pain Requires constant medical care. Date 8.11.90: Diagnosis and prescription of prominent doctor Shri S.R. Dhakar- On account of slipped disc 30% sensation in the legs has been reduced. Dated 18.8.92: Electro Cardiogram- Shown Ischama (heard ailment) Dated 15.1.97: Certificate of Doctor Shri Vijay Kala an authorised doctor of the respondent bank-certifying that the petitioner is under his treatment continuously for last 6 years. 5. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that his repeated representations were acceded to keeping in view the adverse circumstances against the petitioner and whenever he made the representation to be posted at Jaipur his earlier orders of transfer were cancelled. From the record it is also dear that his representation and his medical status was accepted and he was posted back to Jaipur. 6. Reply has been filed. It is stated that it is prerogative of the management as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to pass any order of transfer whenever it is so required by the administration. Under the Bank of Baroda Officers Service Regulations, 1979 every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place in India. It is stated that there is no mala fide alleged and, therefore, the transfer order now made should not be interfered with. 7. No doubt it is prerogative of the employer to post a person as per the exigencies if so required. But in the present case, it is not disputed that right from 1989 on the representations of the petitioner and keeping in view his very bad health, he was ordered to be posted at Jaipur. Even though he was transferred two or three times, but the transfer order was immediately cancelled on the representation having been made. But in the present case, it is not disputed that right from 1989 on the representations of the petitioner and keeping in view his very bad health, he was ordered to be posted at Jaipur. Even though he was transferred two or three times, but the transfer order was immediately cancelled on the representation having been made. The last transfer order dated 6.1.1997 to Meerut Zone was cancelled vide order dated 3.6.1997 which reads as under: 3rd June 1997. No. RZ:PD:296 The Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, M.I. Road Branch, Jaipur, Dear sir, Re: Staff- Shri A.K. Godika, Personnel Officer- Transfer. Reference is requested to your letter No. STF/97 dated 5th Feb., 1997 inter alia, forwarding us thereby a representation received from Shri Godika, addressed to Competent Authority, requesting for his retention in our zone. In this contest, we write to inform you that the Competent Authority has favourably considered the request of Shri Godika for retention in our zone. In view of the above, please treat his transfer to Western U.P. Zone, Meerut, conveyed to you vide our letter No. RZ: PD: 2909 dated 6th Jan., 1997 as cancelled. Yours faithfully, sd/ Asstt. General Manager (Jaipur Region) (Actg. DGM on Leave) 8. In pursuance of the order aforesaid, the petitioner joined on 19.6.1997 and just after two days he was again transferred vide order dated 23.6.1997 (Annex.10) to Sawai Madhopur in the capacity of the Personnel Manager. The repeated transfers from Jaipur, repeated representations and every representation having been accepted and the last representation accepted on 3.6.1997 by which he was ordered back to be posted at Jaipur, when his transfer to Meerut was cancelled, the petitioner joined on 19.6.1997 at Jaipur and again being transferred just after 2-3 days outside Jaipur, do leave an impression that action of the respondent in passing Annexure-10 and also the earlier orders were perhaps not for the good administrative exigencies or in the interest of exigencies of service. It is true that the order of transfer can be interfered if it is mala fide or it is against the policy and in normal circumstances, the order of transfer is not to be interfered but in the present case the facts speak for themselves. It is true that the order of transfer can be interfered if it is mala fide or it is against the policy and in normal circumstances, the order of transfer is not to be interfered but in the present case the facts speak for themselves. The authorities once having accepted the plea of the petitioner about his requirement of posting at Jaipur and each and every repeated transfer order having been cancelled time and again by the authorities as well and posting made to be at Jaipur shows that the authorities had decided as a matter of fact to post the petitioner at Jaipur for exigencies of service. He was brought back vide order dated 3.6.1997. He joined on 19.6.1997 and again was transferred after 2-3 days, it may not be a mala fide but does involve a legal malice. The order Annexure-10 in these circumstances cannot be upheld and is quashed.The writ petition is allowed and the order Annexure-10 dated 23/24.6.1997 is quashed. The petitioner is allowed to stay at Jaipur.Petition Allowed. *******