JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Notification No. 105, dated 19.01.2017 (Annexure-10) whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 4 has cancelled the Notification No. 90, Dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure-7) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was transferred from the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (Tech.), Electrical Supply Circle, Gumla to Electrical Supply Sub-Division, Ratu Road, Ranchi. 3. The factual matrix as has been delineated in the instant writ petition is that on petitioner was initially appointed on 15.04.1991 the post of Switch Board Operator and he joined in Power Sub-Station, Kusai Colony, Ranchi. After due permission, petitioner acquired the qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering during his service. In terms of Rule-7 of the “Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Electrical Engineers (General) Cadre Rules, 1982, petitioner was entitled for the post of Junior Electrical Engineer from the date of vacancy of the year 1997. However, after the order dated 22.01.2001, passed by Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 230 of 2000 and in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 850 of 2002, he was appointed on the post of Junior Electrical Engineer and was posted in Electric Supply Area, Hazaribagh. Since seniority of the petitioner was not decided on the basis of provisions as contained in Rule 11 of the Rules, 1982 he along with others preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 513 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 14.06.2012. In spite of said direction of the Court, juniors to the petitioner were promoted vide seniority dated 20.06.2013. Thereafter, vide Notification No. 4785, Dated 23.08.2013, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (Current Charge). Thereafter, by Notification No. 7608, Dated 30.12.2013, he was transferred on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. The petitioner’s case for consideration of his seniority from 1997 was reconsidered by the Managing Director of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and on 25.09.2014, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Ranchi directed the General Manager (HR) to re-examine the matter, but the authorities of the department did not pay heed to the same. 4. The petitioner’s case for consideration of his seniority from 1997 was reconsidered by the Managing Director of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and on 25.09.2014, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Ranchi directed the General Manager (HR) to re-examine the matter, but the authorities of the department did not pay heed to the same. 4. It is further averred that on 28.07.2015, while posted in Electrical Sub Division, Upper Bazar, Ranchi the petitioner lodged an FIR against 37 Police officials for theft of electricity in Gonda Police Station and he also lodged similar cases in Kotwali Police Station against 17 persons including Police officials. Petitioner was pressurized by the respondent no. 4 and the police officials to withdraw the said FIR. The petitioner fell ill for six months due to undue pressure. Thereafter, vide notification no. 1441, dated 23.10.2015, petitioner was transferred from the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (Current Charge), Electric Supply Sub-Division, Upper Bazar, Ranchi to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer (Current Charge), Electric Supply Sub-Division, Lohardaga. Petitioner filed representation for his posting at Ranchi on the ground that his wife was posted at Ranchi Collectorate and his mother was seriously ill but the same was not considered. Being aggrieved petitioner challenged the said order dated 25.03.2013 before this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 6172 of 2015. 5. It is further averred that vide notification no. 286, dated 18.02.2016, the petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer while he was posted in Lohardaga where he continued till 30.06.2016 and from there he was transferred to Electrical Supply Circle, Gumla pursuant to Notification no. 837, dated 03.06.2016. Against the said transfer order, the petitioner preferred representation on 06.12.2016 requesting respondent no. 2 to reconsider his posting. 6. It is further case of the petitioner that vide Notification No. 90, Dated 17.01.2017, he along with others were transferred on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Ratu Road, Ranchi. Petitioner was relieved on 18.01.2017 from Gumla to join at the new place of posting. Petitioner submitted his joining on 19.01.2017 before the respondent no. 5. After acceptance of his joining, petitioner took charge from one Awadhesh Kumar Buxi, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Ratu Road, Ranchi and started discharging his duties there. It is further case of the petitioner that vide notification no. 105, dated 19.01.2017 the respondent no. Petitioner submitted his joining on 19.01.2017 before the respondent no. 5. After acceptance of his joining, petitioner took charge from one Awadhesh Kumar Buxi, Assistant Electrical Engineer, Ratu Road, Ranchi and started discharging his duties there. It is further case of the petitioner that vide notification no. 105, dated 19.01.2017 the respondent no. 4 unilaterally cancelled the previous notification no. 90, Dated 17.01.2017 even after its implementation and acceptance of joining of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Ratu Road, Ranchi without any recommendation of the Establishment Committee. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the said notification no. 105, dated 19.01.2017. 7. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, strenuously urges that the impugned notification no. 105, dated 19.01.2017 cancelling transfer order of the petitioner even after its implementation and joining of the petitioner to the transferred post, that too within a couple of days without recommendation of the Establishment Committee, has been done with malafide intention. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that once the transfer order has been given effect to, the same cannot be cancelled or recalled. Learned Sr. Counsel has placed reliance in the case of Ram Prasad Mahto & Others Vs. The state of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2003(1) JLJR 427 . Para – 7 of the said Judgment is quoted hereunder: “7. The aforesaid plea as taken by the State cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the subsequent Notification dated 1st June, 2001 deleting Paragraph 2' of the Notification dated 17th May, 2001 was issued by the order of the Governor of Jharkhand. Such Notification having issued by the State Government, they cannot attack their own order/ Notification dated 1st June, 2001 and on that ground they cannot recall/cancel an order of transfer which has already taken place. Though it is open to the State/competent authority to transfer an employee from one place to another or retransfer from the subsequent place, but once a Notification of transfer taken effect, the incumbent joins in pursuance of such order of transfer, such Notification of transfer spent up its force and thereafter nothing substantive remains to be recalled/rescinded, was the view taken by the Patna High Court in the case of Shyam Chandra Jha Vs. State of Bihar and others (unreported) C.W.J.C. No. 8282 of 1998, disposed of on 9th December, 1998.” Learned Sr. Counsel submitted that as the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the seniority list as well as transfer order and had also taken tough steps against the theft of electricity and did not spare even the police officials, the respondents authorities, in order to take vengeance have issued the impugned order cancelling the transfer order of the petitioner. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that the impugned order cancelling the previous order of transfer is wholly unlawful, unjust, improper and without authority in law. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that the respondents authorities are not vested with unfettered and unbridled power of transfer and posting and that too within a couple of days. Learned Sr. Counsel emphatically submitted that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order for such transfer within a couple of days. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that though transfer is incidence of service but the same cannot be made arbitrarily and with oblique motive. Learned Sr. Counsel further submitted that deviation from the policy, norms, guidelines without any justification amounts to discrimination and the same is arbitrary and against the rule of fair play and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In order to strengthen his arguments, learned Sr. Counsel relied on the reported Judgment of this Court in the case of Gurudeo Prasad Mandal Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1996(2) PLJR 66 and further submitted that the legal position that the executive authorities are vested with the power of transfer for proper and smooth functioning of the administrative machinery but while exercising such power, the authorities must eschew arbitrariness and act reasonably. When a person like petitioner is transferred within few days of his posting to another place and that too without any justification for such transfer, the obvious conclusion is that power of transfer has not been exercised either reasonably or in public interest and therefore, this Court may interfere with the impugned order of transfer. On the basis of the abovementioned legal proposition, learned Sr. On the basis of the abovementioned legal proposition, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the cancellation of transfer order has been issued illegally and arbitrarily and contrary to public interest since there is no explanation for such cancellation of transfer order within a span of two days, more so, it has been given effect to. 8. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. O.P. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned Sr. Counsel and further argued that the impugned order is fully justified. Learned counsel further submitted that the reasons have been assigned for the impugned transfer, though it has not been mentioned in the impugned order. Learned counsel further drew attention towards Annexure-D of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5, dated 11.07.2017 and further submitted that after return from the leave, the petitioner wanted to join on 11.03.2017. His joining was turned down by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Supply circle, Ranchi but since notification dated 17.01.2017 was cancelled vide notification dated 19.01.2017, therefore, he had been directed to join at Electrical Supply Circle, Gumla vide memo no. 618, Dated 24.04.2017. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order of transfer. Learned counsel further submitted that pre-mature transfer has been done on the administrative reasons. The Government has got powers under the constitutional scheme within the limitation to issue instructions to cover the gap where there is any vacuum or lacunae. There is no deviation from policy, norms and guidelines and it was in special circumstances that this transfer order of the petitioner has been cancelled. Mr. O.P. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further submitted that the Court’s power of interference in the matter of transfer is extremely limited and normally the Court can interfere only when such transfer is vitiated by noncompliance with the mandatory statutory provision or where the exercise of power can be described as malafide. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was transferred from Gumla to Ratu Road, Ranchi. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was transferred from Gumla to Ratu Road, Ranchi. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner joined the post at Ranchi and also assumed charge and was functioning on the said post. It is settled principle of law that once the transfer order has been given effect to, it cannot be interfered. 10. It is now well established that the appropriate government had got power under the Constitutional Scheme within the limitation of its executive power to issued instruction to cover a gap when there is any vacuum or lacunae. If such guidelines/instructions are not contrary to the statutory rules, the same are valid and required to followed. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Akhilesh C. Bhargav, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 482 . The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Awasthi vs. U.P. Jal Nigam, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 740 clearly held that the transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guideline and the power of transferring the officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily and maliciously with oblique motive. The Apex Court emphasised that “for better administration the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers. … ...” 11. In Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in 1994(1) PLJR (SC) 1, it has been held by the Apex Court that Court’s power of interference in the matter of transfer is extremely limited and normally the Court can interfere only when such transfer is vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory statutory provisions or where the exercise of power can be described as malafide. In the instant case, it is relevant to quote para-4 of the Judgment in the case of Gurudeo Prasad Mandal (Supra). “4. The Court is aware of the legal position that the executive authorities are vested with the power of transfer for proper and smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. At the same time the Court thinks that while exercising such power, the authorities must eschew arbitrariness and act reasonably. “4. The Court is aware of the legal position that the executive authorities are vested with the power of transfer for proper and smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. At the same time the Court thinks that while exercising such power, the authorities must eschew arbitrariness and act reasonably. When a person is transferred within a month of his posting to another place and that too without any justification for such transfer, the obvious conclusion of the Court is that power of transfer has not been exercised either reasonably or in public interest. Like all power, the power of transfer is also conferred on the authorities on a trust that it will not be exercised arbitrarily but when that trust is belied, as it has been in this case, the Court may interfere.” 12. In the instant case there is no material to show any special circumstance, as required for premature transfer. The respondents have failed to show any cogent administrative reasons for transferring the petitioner from the said place of posting within two days. Therefore, it is ample clear that the impugned order cancelling order of transfer is unsustainable and fit to be quashed. Only within a short span of two days, impugned order of cancellatiion of transfer order has been passed without assigning any reason and the reasons have been supplemented by way of counter affidavit, which cannot be allowed by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 and further in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , it has been clearly held that no reasons can be supplied in the counter affidavit to justify a thoroughly non-speaking order otherwise all the non-speaking and arbitrariness orders will be converted into well reasoned and speaking orders by the passage of time, by way of counter affidavits filed in the Court. It has been clearly held that no reasons can be supplied subsequently in the counter affidavit filed in the Court. It has also been held that the statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons as mentioned and can not be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. It has also been held that the statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons as mentioned and can not be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Para-9 of the Judgment passed in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, is relevant to be quoted hereunder: “9. An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner’s affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority, cannot be construed in the light of the explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting’s and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” The aforesaid proposition has been followed in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (Supra). Para-8 of the said Judgment is relevant to be quoted hereunder: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority can not be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority can not be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting’s and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 14. Thus, the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the reasons have been assigned in the supplementary affidavit, which makes no speaking order into speaking one, cannot be accepted by this Court. The Apex Court has held in catena of decision that the reasonableness runs like a golden thread through the entire fabric of the constitutional framework and all governmental actions must be judged on the touchstone of reason and public interest. Relying on these principles, this Court holds that in the instant case the order of cancellation of transfer is vitiated by malice and as such it is a fit case for interference. This Court, therefore, quashes the impugned order of transfer issued vide notification no. 105, dated 19.01.2017, so far it affects the petitioner, on the ground of it being arbitrary and contrary to public interest since there is no explanation for such an order of transfer within a span of few days. 15. This Court, however, records that it has not gone into the merits of any allegations made in the writ petition against any of the respondents. 16. Needless to say here that vide order dated 06.03.2017, this Court had passed interim order to the effect that - “In the mean time, no other person shall be posted on the above post at Ratu Road Sub-Division, Ranchi”. In the circumstances, the respondents authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in view of quashment of the impugned notification no. 105, dated 19.01.2017. 17. This writ petition thus succeeds. There shall be no order as to costs.