JUDGMENT The petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 3rd March 2016, whereby he has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital, Machkhoriya, Unnao to Veterinary Hospital, Miyanganj, Unnao. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this transfer order has been issued at the dictate of Hon'ble Minister of Pashudhan Vikas, whereas it is not permissible in the eye of law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi versus U.P.Jal Nigam and others, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 740 . In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has under as under: - "3.In our view, transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. For better administration the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration." He further placed a decision of this Court given in the case of S.P.Shukla versus State of U.P. and others, reported in ( 2014 (2) LBESR 248 (All), in which it has been held that "on the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner has been transferred at the behest of sitting M.L.A. of the Ruling Party to accommodate his relative, who is respondent No.3 within 15 days of his posting at Kanpur. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the transfer order is full of mala fide and is not sustainable. Such type of transfer is not expected from the Government and authorities should restrain themselves from passing such order on the dictate of politicians contrary to the Government policy." 3. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when we have examined the transfer order as well as the recommendation of the Hon'ble Minister, we found that the Hon'ble Minister is the Minister of the same very department, who has called upon a proposal to transfer the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when we have examined the transfer order as well as the recommendation of the Hon'ble Minister, we found that the Hon'ble Minister is the Minister of the same very department, who has called upon a proposal to transfer the petitioner. We are of the view that since the Hon'ble Minister is the Minister of the concerned department, he has every right to exercise his jurisdiction over the officers and employees of the department including in the matter of transfer. No such ingredients have been found in the case on hand, which may lead us to interfere with the transfer order. 4. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed.