JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. K Ete, learned counsel, for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. K. Jini, learned counsel, for the respondent No. 5 and perused the record, produced by the learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner, who is the Executive Engineer (E&M), Ziro Electro Mechanical Division, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh, has challenged the transfer order, vide Memo No. PWRS/E-1313/2005/Pt-/2808-16, dated 06.06.2011, issued by the Secretary (Power), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, thereby transferring him to Namsai circle from Ziro vice respondent No. 4. 3. In view of the order, dated 14.06.2011, passed by this Court and with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing at this stage and accordingly, I propose to dispose of the matter finally. 4. The petitioner, who belonged to the Electrical Department (Power), was posted, on deputation, as an Executive Engineer (E&M), in the Department of Hydro Power Development and Electro-Mechanical Division, Itanagar. Thereafter, he was posted at Ziro i.e. in his present place of posting. 5. The Hon'ble Minister of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, as he then was, initiated a note, vide note No. MIN/RDPR-16/2009, dated 07.02.2011, requesting the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, to transfer the private respondent No. 4, from Namsai Civil Circle to the Ziro EM Division i.e. in place of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure and that the private respondent No. 4 is a sincere officer. 6. Admittedly, the respondent No. 4 was posted at Namsai circle, on 11.06.2010, and thus, he hardly completed one year, at the said place of posting. However, the Secretary (Power), on the basis of the said note, given by the respondent No. 5, put up a note, indicating that the normal tenure of posting at one place being two years, the respondent No. 4 had completed only nine months at the place of his posting i.e. at Namsai, and that, the time bound programmes like PM's package at Ziro, were to be completed within the schedule time. On the basis of the said note of the Secretary (Power), the Parliamentary Secretary, Hydro Power, on 08.04.2011, also gave a note, indicating that, as the respondent No. 4 had completed only nine months at Namsai and the petitioner was also required to complete the time bound scheme, under the PM's package, both of them should be allowed to continue, at their respective places of postings, for one year. On the basis of the said recommendation, made by the Department and the Parliamentary Secretary, the then Hon'ble Chief Minister, by his order, dated 08.04.2011, approved the said proposal and allowed petitioner to continue work at his present place of posting i.e. at Ziro, for one year. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, who passed aforesaid order, had expired on 30.04.2011 in a tragic chopper crash. Thereafter, on 19.05.2011, the respondent No. 5 again, in his capacity as Ex-Minister and MLA, initiated a fresh note, requesting the newly elected Hon'ble Chief Minister, Arunachal Pradesh, to transfer the respondent No. 4 to Ziro vice the present petitioner. 7. According to the petitioner, being unable to withstand the political pressure, the impugned order, transferring the petitioner to Namsai vice respondent No. 4, was issued, which was illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and not for the exigency of public service or in the interest of administration. 8. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, failed to controvert the petitioner's claim, by filing affidavit-in-opposition. The respondent No. 5, who is the Minister of Home, RD etc. of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, contested the petitioner's claim, by filing an affidavit-in-opposition In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No. 5, while admitting the notes given by him, seeking transfer of the petitioner vice respondent No. 4, stated that, on 25.11.2011, during his official tour to his constituency, he received a representation from the public, wherein it was alleged that, for the last six years, the Dulom Micro Hydel Station in Upper Subansiri District, was lying defunct due to the inactions on the part of the petitioner and that the petitioner failed to complete the targeted work, within the schedule time. The respondent No. 5, further contended that, on the basis of the said representation/complaint, received from the public, and due to the failure of the petitioner to take care of Hydel Station at Dumporijo area and other developmental activities of the area, he initiated a note, dated 07.02.2011, for transferring and posting of one seniormost and sincere officer, namely Mr. T. U. Taba (respondent No. 4), against the post held by the petitioner, who was already completed more than two years of tenure at the Ziro E &M Division. 9. The respondent No. 4, by filing affidavit-in-opposition, while supporting the transfer order, submitted that, on the basis of the said transfer order, he has already joined his new place of posting i.e. at Ziro and assumed the charge on 13.06.2011, on being released from his previous place of posting, on 10.16.2011. The respondent No. 4, further, contended that, he had no knowledge about the steps taken by the respondent No. 5. 10. Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, taking this Court through the pleadings and the office notes, has strenuously submitted that, the impugned order of transfer was very reluctantly issued by the Department, only to fulfil the desire of respondent No. 5, who was also not the administrative authority of the petitioner. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, referring to the office notes, copies of which are available at Annexure Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 respectively, has submitted that, though the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer, who were the immediate controlling officers of the petitioner, while expressing their full confidence on the sincerity and capability of the petitioner, recommended retention of the petitioner, in his present place of posting for the purpose of successful completion of the time bound project, and that the respondent No. 5, without any public interest and sufficient reason, time and again, put pressure for transfer of the petitioner, only to serve the private interest of the private respondent No. 4. The learned counsel, has also submitted that, it is not correct that the transfer of the petitioner was made on the basis of any complaint received against him. The learned counsel, has also submitted that, it is not correct that the transfer of the petitioner was made on the basis of any complaint received against him. The learned counsel further submitted that, if the respondent No. 5 had received any complaint against the petitioner, the same should have been processed and forwarded to the concerned Department for initiating necessary vigilance inquiry to ascertain the truth, but the office notes, prepared by the Department as well as the notes given by the respondent No. 5, make no whisper about such complaint, received by the respondent No. 5. It is also submitted that, if the complaint received by the Minister, was the ground for recommending transfer of the petitioner, the impugned transfer, being made without initiating any inquiry to find out the truth of the allegation, made in the said complaint, is itself mala fide and can't be acted upon. But there is nothing to show that the administrators, at the time of issuing the transfer order, had taken notice of such complaint and applied their mind. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, the transfer order was made only at the request of the Minister i.e. the respondent No. 5, without ascertaining the truth of the allegations, on the basis of which, the Minister claims to have recommended the transfer aforesaid. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned transfer order was mala fide, requiring interference by this Court. In support of his above submission, Mr. P. K.Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and Ors. "reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 ; and (2) Achyutananda Behera v. State of Orissa "and Ors. reported in 1985 I OLR 307. 11. Controverting the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Ete, learned counsel, appearing for the private respondent No. 4, has submitted that, as the petitioner had completed the tenure of two years at Ziro, the impugned transfer order, was not mala fide and that the respondent No. 4, who has already assumed the charge at his new place of posting i.e. Ziro, on being released from his previous place of posting i.e. Namsai, can't be put to harship for no fault on his part. The learned counsel, further submitted that, the Hon'ble Minister i.e. respondent No. 5 after receipt of the complaint from the public, against the petitioner, committed no error in the eye of law, by recommending transfer of the petitioner from the Ziro EM Division. It has also been submitted that, the respondent No. 5 made the request for transfer of the respondent No. 4 to Ziro EM Division for public interest and that there was no malice in making the said recommendation. In support of his contention, Mr. K. Ete, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4, has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 . 12. Mr. K. Jini, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5, supporting the contention made in the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the respondent No. 5, and referring to the public representation, dated 25.01.2011 i.e. Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the respondent No. 5, has submitted that, the Hon'ble Minister, being the local MLA, had received the said complaint from the public, regarding the inactions on the part of the petitioner and as such, he committed no error by recommending the transfer of the petitioner, on the basis of the said allegations. 13. There is no dispute that, an order of transfer unless found to be mala fide or issued with oblique motive, is not assailable. Admittedly, an order of transfer is an administrative order and ordinarily it is an incident of service, which should not be interfered with, unless mala fide or violation of Rules/ Statutory provision is proved against the authority, issuing the order. 14. In the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra), the High Court, while quashing the order of transfer passed against the petitioner, held that he would not be entitled to draw salary for a period of 15 days, on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The petitioner was transferred on the basis of an anonymous complaint, alleging caste bias on his part and pursuant thereto an order of transfer was passed against him. The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal with cost, observed: 16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. The petitioner was transferred on the basis of an anonymous complaint, alleging caste bias on his part and pursuant thereto an order of transfer was passed against him. The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal with cost, observed: 16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds-one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal. 15. In the case of Achyutananda Behera (supra), the petitioner challenged the transfer order, on the ground that his transfer order was motivated and mala fide, being made at the behest of one Mr. Chintamani Jena, a Member of the Parliament. In the return, submitted by the opposite parties, it was stated that, the transfer order was made at the instance of Mr. Jena, to whom, allegations were made against the petitioner by some of the residents of Gundurimara village in the District of Balasore. Mr. Jena wrote two letters to the Director of Agriculture, Orissa, indicating the allegations received by him against the petitioner. He also requested to transfer the petitioner outside his home District immediately. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, while allowing the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, observed: 8. Allegations are sometimes made maliciously or recklessly. Sometimes they are founded on baseless gossip. With the inroad of politics into various start a of society, it is not seldom that allegations are politically motivated. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, while allowing the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, observed: 8. Allegations are sometimes made maliciously or recklessly. Sometimes they are founded on baseless gossip. With the inroad of politics into various start a of society, it is not seldom that allegations are politically motivated. Therefore, when allegations are levelled against an employee, it is desirable, nay imperative, that the administrator should himself ascertain the truth and act on his own satisfaction that the circumstances warrant a transfer. In the above referred case, as the administrator did not apply his mind in respect of the allegations brought against the petitioner, it was held that, no endeavour was made to ascertain the truth and that he acted on the prodding of the legislature, who had in turn acted on the complaint of some villagers. While the above observations, it was held that the transfer of the petitioner was mala fide and liable to be quashed. 16. In the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra), the High Court dismissed the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, challenging the transfer order, holding that the transfer is an exigency of service and an administrative decision and that such order should not be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution unless Court finds that the order was mala fide or the transfer is prohibited by any rules. Appeal being carried to the Supreme Court, the same was dismissed, upholding the order passed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, referred to the following observation made in the case of Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169:- 10. It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be transferred with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. In the said case, on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that, a transfer order was made at the instance of the MLA. In the counter-affidavit, it was stated by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that the appellant was transferred due to complaint received against him. The Supreme Court observed that even if the appellant was transferred on the recommendation of the MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. In the counter-affidavit, it was stated by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that the appellant was transferred due to complaint received against him. The Supreme Court observed that even if the appellant was transferred on the recommendation of the MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. In the above referred case, the Supreme Court, further observed: After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order. 17. In view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, there is no difficulty in understanding that, a transfer order issued by an administrative authority should not be interfered unless the same is found to be issued with oblique motive or suffers from mala fide. Though it is difficult to establish the allegation of mala fide, the circumstance may, however, lead to draw an inference regarding the existence of mala fide. 18. In view of above, in the case at hand, it is required to examine, if the transfer order was issued at the public interest and administrative exigencies. 19. From the record (copy at Annexure-7 to the writ petition), it is found that, the Hon'ble Minister (RD & PR), Arunachal Pradesh, had issued a note, requesting the then Hon'ble Chief Minister (since expired), to transfer the respondent No. 4 to Ziro E & M Division. The said office note, does not indicate the ground for which the said transfer was recommended. In the said note, the office indicated that, the respondent No. 4, on being transferred to Namsai Civil Circle, joined on 11.06.2010. The note was put up on 04.04.2011. Therefore, it appears that, the respondent No. 4 had hardly completed ten months of his service at Namsai Civil Circle. In the said note, the office indicated that, the respondent No. 4, on being transferred to Namsai Civil Circle, joined on 11.06.2010. The note was put up on 04.04.2011. Therefore, it appears that, the respondent No. 4 had hardly completed ten months of his service at Namsai Civil Circle. The Secretary of the Department, on the basis of the said note, also mentioned that, the respondent No. 4 had completed only nine months at his present place of posting i.e. Namsai, and that the time bound programmes like PMs package, are to be completed as per schedule. It is also revealed from the office note (pages 33-34/NS) that, Sri T. U. Taba, SW (E&M), Namsai Civil Circle, has completed only nine months at Namsai and that Sri Rubu Opo i.e. the petitioner has to complete the time bound scheme under the PM package and that both of them should be allowed to continue at their present place of posting for one year. This proposal was approved by the former Chief Minister, on 12.04.2011. Annexure-12 and Annexure-13, issued by the Superintending Engineer (C), Itanagar Civil Circle, and the Chief Engineer, Department of Hydro Power Development, Itanagar, respectively, also indicate that the presence of the petitioner, who was dedicatedly implementing the project, in his present place of posting was necessary to complete the time bound scheme under the PM project and that his transfer at that stage would affect the overall progress and delay the completion of the scheme. Therefore, it stands established, that the continuance of the petitioner at Ziro EM Division, was necessary for administrative exigency and public interest. The proposal for transfer of the petitioner, indicated by the respondent No. 5, was also negated with the approval, granted by the then Chief Minister, on 12.04.2011. 20. Again, on 19.04.2011, the respondent No. 5, issued a note to the Chief Minister, recommending the transfer of respondent No. 4 to Ziro EM Division, on the ground that the petitioner had completed his normal tenure and that it was inconvenient for the respondent No. 4 to work at Namsai Civil Circle, due to his domestic problems, in as much as, he was required to look after his aged ailing father and that his posting at a place like Ziro would be very near to his village. On receipt of the said note from the respondent No. 5, the Under Secretary to the Department of Power, gave the following note: This case was processed earlier in main file where a decision was taken to maintain status quo for one more year for completion of PM's package falling under Ziro E&M Division. Shri Rubu Opo, EE (E&M), Ziro has completed 2 (two) years at Ziro whereas, Shri Tayum Yudik Taba, EE (E&M), Tezu has completed almost 1(one) year in his present place of posting at Namsai. As per the transfer and posting policy, the minimum tenure is 2 (two) years. However, on the basis of the U.O. Note at 1/c, the proposal is put up for further orders please. Sd/- illegible, 25.05.11 Under Secretary (Power) On the basis of the said note, the Secretary (Power), placed the following note before the Hon'ble Chief Minister: In a no. of occasions Hon. Minister, Home, RD etc. has been requesting the Department to post Shri Tayum Yudik Taba, SW (E&M), Namsai DHPD Circle at Ziro as EE Ziro, E&M Division (DHPD) at Ziro Shri Rubu Opo, EE (E&M) Ziro has completed 2 years tenure. If agreed cross transfer may be approved. Sd/-illegible, 27/5 The Hon'ble Chief Minister, on 31.05.2011, approved the aforesaid proposal, which followed the impugned transfer order. 21. From the said note given by the Secretary (Power), it appears that, he had put up the note on the basis of the request made by the Hon'ble Minister, Home, RD etc. Apparently, the said note, proposing transfer of the petitioner, was not made for any public interest or administrative exigency, rather, as discussed earlier, from the approval given by the then Chief Minister, on 12.04.2011, it appears that the continuance of the petitioner at Ziro EM Division, was necessary for public interest as well as administrative exigency. The second transfer proposal of the petitioner was approved by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, on 31.05.2011 i.e. almost after about 45 days from the earlier approval, dated 12.04.2011, granted by the former Chief Minister. There is nothing on record to show as to what was the public interest or administrative exigency, which required transfer of the person, whose transfer proposal was stayed for a period of one year for public interest, with the approval granted by the then Chief Minister, on 12.04.2011. There is nothing on record to show as to what was the public interest or administrative exigency, which required transfer of the person, whose transfer proposal was stayed for a period of one year for public interest, with the approval granted by the then Chief Minister, on 12.04.2011. The note given by the respondent No. 5 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, indicates that, the respondent No. 5 was very much concerned about the domestic difficulties faced by the respondent No. 4, and as such the respondent No. 5, desired that the respondent No. 4 may be posted at Ziro EM Division, which will be nearer to his native village. Therefore, the said recommendation for transfer of the petitioner from Ziro EM Division vice respondent No. 4, appears to be made only for personal interest and convenience of the respondent No. 4 and not for any public interest. 22. As held in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra), a transfer order made on the recommendation of an MLA or a Minister, unless the same is found to be vitiated with mala fideness, does not warrant interference. There is no dispute that, it is the duty of the public representatives to express the grievances of the public, against a Government official. However, mere allegations, unless the same is found to be true, can't be the ground for transfer, unless such transfer is required to be made for public interest or administrative exigencies. 23. There can be no dispute that, a legislator or an elected representative of the people, is the best spokesperson of the people, whom he represents. He is not only the law maker but also representative of the people inside the legislature as well as outside. There can be no bar for him to carry the grievances of the people to the authority concerned and to recommend initiation of action for the public interest. There is also no dispute that, retention of an inefficient person in an important post, which needs completion of certain time bound schemes, would adversely affect the public interest. That apart, retention of such person, against whom public complaints/allegations are found to be true, can't be canvassed. In the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra), the local MLA recommended the transfer on the basis of the complaint received against him. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the said transfer order. 24. That apart, retention of such person, against whom public complaints/allegations are found to be true, can't be canvassed. In the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra), the local MLA recommended the transfer on the basis of the complaint received against him. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the said transfer order. 24. In the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) also, complaint was received, alleging caste bias on the part of the appellant and on the basis of such complaint, he was transferred. The said transfer order was set aside and quashed. The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, observed that no vigilance enquiry was initiated and that the order of transfer was passed on material, which was non-existent and as such the transfer order not only suffers from total non-application of mind on the part of the authorities but also suffers from malice in law. 25. In the case of Achyutananda Behera (supra), the transfer order was made on the basis of a complaint received by a Member of the Parliament. Their Lordships, in the Division Bench, observed that on receipt of the allegations against an employee, the administrator should himself ascertain the truth and act on his own satisfaction that the circumstances warrant a transfer. 26. In the case at hand, admittedly, the transfer order has been made at the instance of the respondent No. 5. Fact remains, that the Superintending Engineer as well as the Chief Engineer, under whom the petitioner was working, recommended the retention of the petitioner in the present place of posting i.e. Ziro EM Division, for the purpose of successful completion of the undergoing time bound scheme under the PM project. Even in the note given by the concerned Departmental Secretary, on 04.04.2011; clearly indicates that the respondent No. 4 has completed only nine months, in the place of posting i.e. at Namsai and that the time bound programme like PMs package are required to be completed as per schedule. On the basis of the said note, the concerned Parliamentary Secretary, Hydro Power, on 08.04.2011, also recommended that the petitioner should be allowed to continue for one more year in his present place of posting. This recommendation was, accordingly, approved by the then Chief Minister, on 12.04.2011. Therefore, in ordinary course, the petitioner should not have been disturbed before expiry of the said period of one year. This recommendation was, accordingly, approved by the then Chief Minister, on 12.04.2011. Therefore, in ordinary course, the petitioner should not have been disturbed before expiry of the said period of one year. In view of above, it transpires that, the continuation/retention of the petitioner at Ziro EM Division i.e. in his present place of posting was necessary for the public interest as well as administrative exigency. 27. As mentioned earlier, the respondent No. 5, again on 19.04.2011, made another recommendation, requesting transfer of respondent No. 4 to, Ziro EM Division, on the ground that the respondent No. 4, who was posted at Namsai Circle, was facing personal difficulties including domestic problems and that his posting at Ziro would be near his native village, which would be convenient for him. In the said note, placed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, it was also stated that the petitioner had completed more than his normal tenure at Ziro EM Division. The fact that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at Ziro EM Division was made known to the Department as well as the former Hon'ble Chief Minister and the then Hon'ble Chief Minister, by order, dated 12.04.2011, allowed the petitioner to continue for one more year in his present place of posting i.e. up to 12.04.2012, for public interest and administrative exigencies. Therefore, the ground that the petitioner had completed the normal tenure of two years, could not have been a ground for fresh recommendation for his transfer. 28. The respondent No. 5, who made repeated recommendations/requests for transfer of the respondent No. 4 to Ziro i.e. the place, where the petitioner was posted, in his affidavit-in-opposition, stated that, he had received representation/complaint, from the public, in his capacity as the local representative, regarding inefficiency, on the part of the petitioner and therefore, he initiated the note, dated 07.02.2011, for transferring and posting the respondent No. 4, who was the seniormost and sincere officer, indicating that the petitioner had already completed two years service at Ziro. He, again on 19.04.2011, initiated a note for posting a sincere officer in place of the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 also annexed the representation, received from the public. The said representation (Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5); indicates serious allegations, including financial mismanagement, against the petitioner. He, again on 19.04.2011, initiated a note for posting a sincere officer in place of the petitioner. The respondent No. 5 also annexed the representation, received from the public. The said representation (Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5); indicates serious allegations, including financial mismanagement, against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 5, the said complaint/allegations received against the petitioner was the cause of initiating the proposal for transfer of the petitioner from Ziro EM Division vice respondent No. 4. 29. If the alleged allegations were the basis for recommending transfer of the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 should have forwarded the same to the concerned Department, suggesting action. There is nothing on record to find that the said representation/complaint, was forwarded to the Department concerned and that the transfer order of the petitioner, was issued by the Department on the basis of the said complaint. Furthermore, the recommendations/notes initiated by the respondent No. 5, on 07.02.2011 and 19.04.2011 respectively, are silent about the alleged allegations/complaint received by the respondent No. 5 from the public of his constituency. If the respondent No. 5 had received such complaint and if the complaint, claimed to be received by the respondent No. 5, was the basis for recommending the transfer, there was no reason not to mention about such complaint in the notes aforesaid. The note, dated 7.02.2011 indicates the desire of the respondent No. 5 to transfer the petitioner, who has completed the normal tenure, vice the respondent No. 4, who was stated to be sincere, dedicated and committed Arunachalee officer. This recommendation came to an end with the approval granted by the then Chief Minister, on 12.04.2011 aforesaid. In the second recommendation, dated 19.04.2011, on the basis of which, the impugned transfer order was passed, the respondent No. 5, while indicating the completion of normal tenure of posting at Ziro, by the petitioner, mentioned about the personal difficulties faced by the respondent No. 4, at Namsai. 30. In view of above, it is clear that, though the respondent No. 5 claims to have made the recommendation for transfer of the petitioner following receipt of the complaint, there is no whisper, either in the notes, given by him recommending such transfer order, or in the notes/office orders, passed by the administrative authorities. 30. In view of above, it is clear that, though the respondent No. 5 claims to have made the recommendation for transfer of the petitioner following receipt of the complaint, there is no whisper, either in the notes, given by him recommending such transfer order, or in the notes/office orders, passed by the administrative authorities. Therefore, it is found that the transfer order was not made on the basis of the complaint received by the respondent No. 5. Hence, it is found that the facts and circumstances in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad (supra) and the present case at hand, are not similarly situated. Therefore, the decision cited by Mr. K. Ete, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4, does not came to the help of respondent No. 4. 31. Considering entire aspect of the matter, more particularly, the office notes, as mentioned above, it appears, that the transfer order of the petitioner was made on the basis of the desire of respondent No. 5, and to adjust the respondent No. 4, who had not completed even ten months, not to speak of normal tenure of two years, at his place of posting i.e. at Namsai Civil Circle. The transfer order, which was issued only to serve the personal interest of an employee, that too at the desire of the respondent No. 5, is found to be against the public interest and administrative exigency. There can be no dispute that, public interest should be the paramount consideration in issuing transfer order. No order should be allowed to stand against the public interest. As discussed above, it has been found that retention of the petitioner at Ziro was necessary for public interest. Therefore, the impugned order being passed at the cost of public interest, that too violating the earlier approval granted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The impugned transfer order, was, therefore, mala fide, requiring interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 32. Accordingly, this Court finds sufficient merit in this writ petition The impugned transfer aforesaid, is set aside and quashed. The impugned transfer order, was, therefore, mala fide, requiring interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 32. Accordingly, this Court finds sufficient merit in this writ petition The impugned transfer aforesaid, is set aside and quashed. It is made clear, that quashing of the impugned transfer order aforesaid, will not prevent the authorities from taking such necessary action as may be considered proper, regarding continuance of the petitioner at Ziro, in public interest or in the interest of administrative exigencies. 33. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed