JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 1st May, 2002, passed in Review Petition (M.C.C. No. 203 of 2002), arising out of the order dated 30th January, 2002, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4423 of 2000, the appellant/petition has filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent. 2. Brief facts of this appeal are that by way of W.P. No. 4423/2000 the appellant, who is an employee in M.P. State Mining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), challenged the order of his transfer from Bhopal to Mainpat (District Surguja), dated 7-2-2000 on the post of Assistant Mines Manager. As alleged by the appellant, he was working as Asstt. General Manager (Mines) in the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4000. By the impugned transfer order, the appellant has been transferred to Mainpat on the post of Assistant Mines Manager which is not sanctioned post in the establishment of Corporation. He has been transferred to a lower post which amounts to demotion. After the transfer of the appellant no other person has been posted on the post which he was occupying. The impugned order of transfer is mala fide and is effected to punish and penalize the appellant. He is being harassed by way of transfer due to the reason that he filed petition registered as M.C.C. No. 769/94 in this Court against the Corporation. He could not have been deprecated with an unscheduled and unreasonable transfer. The transfer has uprooted his family and caused irreparable hardship to him. The appellant submitted that his children are studying in English medium school at Bhopal and in Mainpat there is no English medium school. Therefore, the education of his children will suffer. 3. In the rejoinder, the appellant submitted that one Ashutosh Temle, Mines Manager, having the requisite qualification is presently posted in the independent charge at Hirapur. Mr. Temle could have been transferred to Mainpat to work in subordinate capacity and the appellant could have been transferred to Hirapur in the independent charge, but the appellant was transferred with mala fide intentions to Mainpat. The appellant is being put under the subordination of one P.S. Yadav who has been promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager superseding the appellant. This promotion has been challenged by the appellant in this Court. The appellant is being put under the subordination of one P.S. Yadav who has been promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager superseding the appellant. This promotion has been challenged by the appellant in this Court. The transfer and posting of the appellant is aimed at forcing him to work under the administrative control of the officer who is much junior which will cause great deal of mental harassment and he will be required to work in a very disrespectful condition. The appellant apprehends that he will suffer harassment. In the rejoinder, the appellant has also submitted that he was never relieved from his post. The relieving order has been issued in haste only to put him under undue harassment. 4. The respondents have denied the allegations made in the petition. They have submitted that the appellant/ petitioner has been designated as Assistant Mines Manager to meet the requirement of provisions of Regulation No. 34 of the Metaliferous Mines Regulation, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation'). The appellant was relieved on 20-7-2000, before filing of the petition on 22-7-2000. According to the respondents, the appellant has been transferred keeping in view the exigency of work as required to fulfil the objectives and responsibilities of the Corporation, which is a commercial undertaking of the Government of M.P. towards its valued customers. Transfer is a part of the normal routine. The respondents have further submitted that Mainpat mine has been closed down by the Director General of Mines Safety, in May, 2000. One of the conditions for allowing it to reopen was to post an Assistant Mines Manager with the requisite certificate of competency. Due to the appellant's wilful and unauthorized absence and refusal to join at Mainpat, the senior most officer of the Corporation of the rank of Senior General Manager, which is three ranks higher than the post held by the appellant had to be sent to meet statutory requirements so that mine could be reopened. The appellant should not have put his personal needs and his convenience above that of the organization. No organisation can run if every employee had to be posted at a place of his choice at all times. The Mining Engineers have to be posted where the mines are located. 5. The appellant should not have put his personal needs and his convenience above that of the organization. No organisation can run if every employee had to be posted at a place of his choice at all times. The Mining Engineers have to be posted where the mines are located. 5. The respondents have submitted that the appellant concealed the fact that he was relieved, therefore, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief. The respondents further submit that it was not appropriate for the Corporation to transfer Mr. Ashutosh Temle to Mainpat as a substitute to the appellant because he has already been working at Hirapur Mine. His transfer to Mainpat would have caused disturbance to the work at Hirapur. Regarding Mr. P.S. Yadav, the respondents have submitted that Mr. Yadav has been promoted in the higher pay scale. Unless his promotion is set aside by a competent authority, he remains an officer of a rank higher than the appellant. 6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that administration can transfer the employee from one place to another and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by the Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or the authority issuing the order did not have the competence to issue such order. It was also held that the appellant has been transferred as Assistant Mines Manager on the same pay- scale in which he was drawing salary as Assistant General Manager. It can neither be said to be demotion of the appellant nor it diminishes his position. Being aggrieved the appellant filed the Letters Patent appeal which was registered as L.P.A. No. 75/2002. The appeal came up for admission and stay before the Division Bench on 5-3-2002. At the stage of admission it was submitted by the appellant before the Division Bench that certain points were taken before the Single Judge but they were not considered and decided in the impugned judgment. The Division Bench observed that proper course for the appellant was to approach the learned Single Judge by way of review petition inviting attention to the omissions and seek finding thereon. 7. The Division Bench observed that proper course for the appellant was to approach the learned Single Judge by way of review petition inviting attention to the omissions and seek finding thereon. 7. In compliance of the order passed in the aforesaid L.P.A. the appellant filed a review petition before the learned Single Judge which was registered as M.C.C. No. 208/2002. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge again did not consider the points raised by the appellant and dismissed the review petition without giving any finding on the issues raised by the appellant. It is against this order that the appellant has come up in appeal. 8. We have heard Shri M.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ petitioner and Shri P.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on caveat. 9. The contention of Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is four fold: (1) The learned Single Judge has not considered the mala fides committed by the respondents; (2) There is no post of Assistant Mines Manager, therefore, appellant could not have been transferred as Assistant Mines Manager; (3) The minimum qualification for statutory appointment as Manager is a foreman certificate and many officials of the Corporation have this qualification; and (4) After carving of Chhattisgarh State officers of Mainpat mine came within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgrah Mining Corporation and, therefore, respondents cannot transfer the appellant from one State to another. Since the appellant was not relieved by the respondents, the impugned order of transfer has become infructuous after the division of the respondent-Corporation. 10. Regarding the first contention Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is being harassed by way of transfer due to the reason that he filed a Contempt Petition No. 789/94 in this Court against the management. The respondents have filed copy of the aforesaid petition. Its perusal reveals that it pertains to entirely different matter. As the appellant was qualified to hold the post of Assistant Mines Manager, he was posted to Mainpat. The allotment of work and posting of an officer is the prerogative of the management. Keeping in view the qualification of the appellant he was transferred. Deputy Director of Mines Safety, Bilaspur inspected the mines at Bilaspur and due to the non-appointment of an Assistant Mines Manager, the mine at Mainpat was closed down vide order dated 23-5-2000. The allotment of work and posting of an officer is the prerogative of the management. Keeping in view the qualification of the appellant he was transferred. Deputy Director of Mines Safety, Bilaspur inspected the mines at Bilaspur and due to the non-appointment of an Assistant Mines Manager, the mine at Mainpat was closed down vide order dated 23-5-2000. To correct the situation, the respondents appointed the appellant, just to comply with the provisions of the rules. It was the obligation of the Corporation to appoint staff as per requirement of law, therefore, it cannot be said that the transfer order is mala fide or arbitrary. 11. Regarding the second submission, learned counsel for the appellant relied on Schedule-I, annexed with Annexure P-3 in which the classification and number of posts available with the Corporation is given. He submits that post of Assistant Mines Manager is not given in the schedule. Shri Agrawal submits that the appellant is presently working in the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4000. The post of Mines Manager exists in the pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000. Assistant Mines Manager is inferior to even Mines Manager, therefore, the appellant could not have been transferred on the post of Assistant Mines Manager. This transfer amounts to demotion and it demeans the status of the appellant. 12. A perusal of Annexure R-4 reveals that the Deputy Director of Mines, Bilaspur, after inspection of mines at Mainpat, pointed out violation regarding not appointing an Assistant Mines Manager and according to the respondents, on this ground the Director closed down the Mainpat mine vide order dated 23-5- 2000. To correct the situation, the respondents transferred the petitioner to comply with the provisions of Regulation - 35 of the Regulation. It was obligatory on the part of the Corporation to appoint the staff as per the requirement of law. The violation so pointed out by the Deputy Director, Mines Safety, was pertaining to posting of a qualified person as Assistant Mines Manager. According to Rule 34 the qualification of the Manager was that the incumbent should have first or second class Manager's Certificate. Since the petitioner is having a second class certificate of competency, he was chosen to be posted as Assistant Mines Manager at Mainpat, just to rectify the mistake because the mining operations were prohibited by the Director till the rectification of the violations pointed out in the Enquiry Report. 13. Since the petitioner is having a second class certificate of competency, he was chosen to be posted as Assistant Mines Manager at Mainpat, just to rectify the mistake because the mining operations were prohibited by the Director till the rectification of the violations pointed out in the Enquiry Report. 13. In S.I. Rooplal and another v. Lt. Governor, Delhi and others AIR 2000 SC 594 which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge, it has been held that equivalence of two posts is judged not only on the salary of the post but also on the nature and duties, and responsibilities of the post; and minimum qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post and the salary of the post. In this case, the respondents have repeatedly submitted that the appellant has been transferred as an Assistant Manager in the same pay-scale, in which he was drawing salary as Assistant General Manager. The Assistant Mines Manager is a statutory designation as per the requirements of the Regulations. When the pay- scale is the same, nature of the duties is same and the responsibilities are same, mere change of nomenclature of designation will not demean the status of the appellant. 14. Regarding next submission, learned counsel, appearing for appellant, submits that the minimum qualification for statutory appointment as manager is a foreman certificate and many officials of the Corporation have this qualification. The qualifications and appointments of Managers is provided in Regulation-34 (supra) which provides that no person shall act as manager of a mine, the average employment of which is in excess of 75, unless he holds first class or second class manager's certificate. When the Director of Mines Safety required the respondents to appoint an Assistant Mines Manager having second class manager's certificate, mala fides cannot be attributed to the respondents. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the minimum qualification for statutory appointment as manager is foreman for this particular mine, is not established. 15. Regarding the last contention of Shri Agrawal, we may say that this was not raised during arguments in W.P. No. 4423/2000. The appellant has not filed the affidavit of the counsel who appeared at the time of arguments in W.P. No. 4423/2000, to the effect that such an argument was raised but not considered. 15. Regarding the last contention of Shri Agrawal, we may say that this was not raised during arguments in W.P. No. 4423/2000. The appellant has not filed the affidavit of the counsel who appeared at the time of arguments in W.P. No. 4423/2000, to the effect that such an argument was raised but not considered. While arguing the review petition also this contention was not pursued by the appellant. This has been clearly mentioned in the order dated 1-5-2002 passed by the Single Judge in the review petition i.e. M.C.C No. 203 of 2002. It appears that having lost the writ petition and the review petition having been dismissed, the appellant grows wiser and tries to raise issues which were not pursued before the learned Single Judge, making a false statement that they were pursued. We condemn this practice. 16. The appellant was transferred and relieved prior to the formation of Chhattisgarh State. It was because of his adamancy that he did not join at Mainpat. He shall be deemed to have been transferred prior to the formation of Chhattisgarh State. 17. It was also the case of the appellant that Shri Ashutosh Temle, Mines Manager, Hirapur, could have been posted at Mainpat to ensure compliance with Regulation 34 of the Regulations. If Mr. Temle would have been transferred to Mainpat, it would have required a substitute and would have meant disturbance to the work at Hirapur, where Mr. Ashutosh Temle was already posted. As the appellant was qualified to hold the post of Assistant Mines Manager, he was posted as such at Mainpat. It was also the case of the appellant that his transfer is aimed to force him to work under the control of Shri. P.S. Yadav, who is much junior to him. He submitted that he has challenged the promotion of Shri P.S. Yadav. Unless and until Shri Yadav's promotion is set aside, he remains an officer of the rank higher than the appellant. 18. The allotment of work and posting of an officer is a propagative of the management. If any particular work is allotted to an employee keeping in view his capability and qualifications, he cannot take the plea that he could not be transferred since it was a different job. It is for the management to decide if he is suitable for the job and to allot him work accordingly. If any particular work is allotted to an employee keeping in view his capability and qualifications, he cannot take the plea that he could not be transferred since it was a different job. It is for the management to decide if he is suitable for the job and to allot him work accordingly. appellant proceeded on leave without prior approval and did not receive the order relieving him and this order was affixed at his house. He did not join at the new place. Proceeding on leave without prior approval and not joining at the place where the appellant was transferred, was an act of indiscipline on his part. 19. This does not appear to be a case where the transfer is not in the public interest and has been effected to victimize the appellant. An employee, holding a transferable post is liable to be transferred from one place to another. He has no legal right to insist for his posting at a particular place of his choice. Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest, should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on grounds of mala fides. It is true that the order of transfer may cause a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employee but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. 20. The scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of the government servants without adverse consequence of the service or career prospects is very limited see Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna and others, AIR 1981 SC 1577 . 21. As a sequel to the above discussion, we are of the view that from the facts pleaded and established there is no foundation for drawing a reasonable inference of either mala fide or arbitrariness. 21. As a sequel to the above discussion, we are of the view that from the facts pleaded and established there is no foundation for drawing a reasonable inference of either mala fide or arbitrariness. The appellant did not join at the place of his transfer and proceeded on leave without it being sanctioned and because of his wilful and unauthorized absence and not joining at Mainpat, a senior most technical officer of the Corporation of the rank of Chief General Manager, which is three ranks higher than that of the appellant, had to be sent to Mainpat to meet the statutory requirements so that the mine which was closed by the Director of Mines Safety, may be reopened. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order of transfer. 22. For the foregoing reasons, no interference in the order impugned is called for and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.