JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, Chairman.—The applicant herein has assailed his transfer from Barmana to Shimla vide Annexure-A/1 vice respondent No. 3 who has been transferred from Shimla to Barmana and has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer. 2. The case of the applicant in brief is that the impugned transfer order has been passed at the behest and with a view to accommodate respondent No. 3 who has not complete even one year of service at Shimla and the impugned transfer is not in public interest or exigency of service but the power has been exercised just to accommodate and adjust respondent No. 3 at the place of his choice which is impermissible in law. It has further been claimed that the applicant is suffering from Chronic Psychotropic disorder and is under treatment since 2003. His wife is working as JBT Teacher and belongs to District cadre. Thus the applicant is not in a position to shift to Shimla and deserves more sympathetic attitude than shown to respondent No. 3, hence this original application. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 defended the impugned transfer on the ground that transfer of an employee is the right of the employer and ordinarily should not be interfered with unless shown to be the outcome of mala fide exercise of powers and violative of statutory provisions. It is further claimed that the respondents had ordered the impugned transfer in the interest of work of the Corporation inasmuch as the occupant of the seat from which the applicant has been transferred is responsible for procurement of cement for whole of the State of Himachal Pradesh total value whereof comes to about Rs. 90 Crores, therefore, keeping in view the disease from which the applicant is suffering the impugned transfer has been ordered in public interest and in the exigency of service. It is also claimed that the allegations that the impugned transfer is at the behest of and with a view to accommodate respondent No. 3 are wrong and incorrect. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record produced. 5. It is also claimed that the allegations that the impugned transfer is at the behest of and with a view to accommodate respondent No. 3 are wrong and incorrect. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record produced. 5. The relevant noting which finally led to the transfer of the applicant as available on the record produced by the respondents 1 and 2 does not mention that the seat occupied by the applicant at Barmana carries greater responsibilities and because of the ailment of the applicant he is required to be transferred. From the notings on the file which came into being on the basis of direction given by a Minister reveal that it was intended to transfer respondent No. 3 from Shimla to Bilaspur or to Mandi. It is clear from the intention as reflected in the noting that replacement of the applicant from Barmana was not under consideration but it was just transferring respondent No. 3 either to Bilaspur or to Mandi, therefore from the noting it can legitimately be inferred that the process of transfer was initiated with a view to adjust at either of the two places specified in the noting. Thus the process which did not start from respondent No. 3 from the right quarter as any normal transfer was not with a view to replace the applicant on the ground as now alleged but was to adjust respondent No. 3 at either of the two places as indicated in the noting. The impugned transfer therefore, cannot be said to have been ordered in public interest or in the exigency of service but evidently I because respondent No. 3 was to be given a suitable posting as indicated by the Minster. The impugned transfer order, therefore, is unsustainable in law. 6. It may be pointed out that with a view to justify the impugned transfer and to show that it does not call for any interference the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 laid reliance on Union of India and others v. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245, State of U.P. and another v. Siya Ram and another, (2004) 7 SCC 405, Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India and others, (2005) 7 SCC 227 and S.C. Saxena v. Union of India and others, (2006) 9 SCC 583. The above decisions need not be quoted at length here for the reason that they reiterated the established and well settled position in law that transfer and posting of an employee is the prerogative of the employer and the employer is the best judge to decide where a particular employee is to be posted in the best public interest or in the exigency of service. However, it is equally well settled and not overruled by either of the aforesaid judgments that a transfer which is actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness or which is contrary to the statute or violative of the right of the employee or is not in public interest or in the exigency of service cannot be sustained. Since the impugned transfer in view of the contents of the relevant noting on the records of the respondents 1 and 2 in the interest of respondent No. 3 and not in the public interest or in the exigency of service, therefore, it cannot be sustained on the basis of the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents that because of the ailment from which the applicant is suffering it is not in the public interest to retain him at the present seat. These considerations were not the bases for the impugned transfer; therefore, on the basis of these submissions the impugned transfer order cannot be maintained. However, if there exist such considerations as urged the respondents are always at liberty to exercise their powers and prerogative of transferring its employees in the public interest or exigency of service and nothing contained in this order even if the impugned transfer order is set aside is going to effect those powers of respondents 1 and 2. 8. As a result this original application is allowed and the impugned transfer order is set aside. The parties are however, left to bear their own costs. Application allowed.