Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for private Respondent No. 4. The petitioner was transferred on 30.3.2007 from Kauakole in the District of Nawadah to Karakat in the District of Rohtas. He is aggrieved by his transfer soon thereafter as early as 24.1.2008 from Karakat to Bisfi in the District of Madhubani. The challenge is on the ground that this transfer at a very short duration has been made only to accommodate the private respondent No. 4 and that there was no administrative ground for the same. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and the private respondent. 3. Transfer is a normal incidence of service. Courts are therefore normally reluctant to interfere with the orders of transfer unless good grounds are made out. Once the petitioner has questioned the administrative grounds, the official respondents were obliged to disclose the same which they have sought to do in the counter affidavit. The administrative ground is that the Officer posted at Bisfi suddenly proceeded on unauthorized long leave creating hurdle in the works at Bisfi. It had therefore become necessary to transfer the petitioner to Bisfi. Additionally it has been stated in the counter affidavit "In the meantime Revenue and Land Reforms Department had received report regarding misunderstanding amongst general people against the petitioner. On perusal of these reports Government has decided that it is in public interest to transfer the petitioner on administrative ground". 4. Much emphasis was laid on behalf of the official respondents on their right to decide transfer and posting. There can be no dispute or controversy with regard to the same. To re-transfer the petitioner within a short span of eight months in the background of allegation of the transfer being to accommodate another person, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to make out a case of inefficiency on part of others putting hindrance in the work. There is no such suggestion in the counter affidavit. The latter part of the administrative ground sought to be urged on behalf of the official respondent is vague. This Court is satisfied that it has been urged only in a desperate attempt to justify the term "administrative ground", when there be no other material in support of the same. There is no such suggestion in the counter affidavit. The latter part of the administrative ground sought to be urged on behalf of the official respondent is vague. This Court is satisfied that it has been urged only in a desperate attempt to justify the term "administrative ground", when there be no other material in support of the same. No details of such report, the materials of such report, how it was hampering work etc. has been set out. 5. Learned Counsel for the private respondent urged that if this Court was being persuaded to interfere with the impugned order of transfer he should be left at his original place of posting at Belchhi from where he has been transferred to Karakat. That cannot be the subject matter of the present writ petition. If aggrieved the respondent No. 4 can have his remedies either before the authorities in a representation or in a freshly constituted writ application. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 24.1.2008 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and that the administrative ground sought to be urged was only a ruse. The impugned order is accordingly quashed in so far as it concerns the present petitioner. The respondents shall however not be restrained in any manner in dealing otherwise with the petitioner in accordance with law hereinafter. The writ application stands allowed.