JUDGMENT 1. - Counsel submits that learned Tribunal has rejected the appeal preferred by petitioner, on 4th December, 2009. Application has been filed for obtaining certified copy, but it is not made available to him and this being the matter where petitioner has been transferred under order impugned dated 13th November, 2009. Delay will be fataled and will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 2. Office objection in the facts of instant case stands over-ruled and it has been heard for admission. 3. Petitioner, who is working as Gram Sevak, was transferred by the State Government in exercise of power under section 89(8)(ii) of the Act, 1994 vide order dated 13th November, 2009, preferred appeal before Tribunal which has been rejected on 4th December, 2009, copy of which has not been made available to him so far and defect pointed out by the office has been dispensed with by this Court. 4. Counsel submits that FIR was registered at the behest of petitioner against three persons who are accused and they are close relatives of Local MLA, who is respondent no.3 and because of this political intervention and to frustrate the FIR which has been registered at the behest of petitioner, he has been transferred under order impugned Ann.3 dated 13th November, 2009. 5. What has been alleged by the petitioner is vague and no material has been placed on record by which the respondent no.3 could be connected with the persons who are accused in the FIR registered at the behest of petitioner and apart from it, the order impugned has been passed by the State Government in exercise of power under section 89 8. (ii) of the Act, 1994 and it is always expected that the authority must have examined the matter pertains to transfer whenever required in the interest of administration unless proved to be contrary and apart from it, no malice has been alleged against the authority who has passed the order impugned or violation of statutory rules, if any. 6. Transfer is otherwise an incidence of service and he cannot claim any lien to continue in one District for all times to come and the authority if considered proper to transfer him in the interest of administration. The action cannot be said to be arbitrary, requires interference. 7. Consequently, this court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******