ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing of impugned order dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner who is working as Lecturer LB (Hindi) T Grade, has been transferred from Government Higher Secondary School, Baharsi, District- Koriya to Government High School, Puniya, Block- Mainpat, District- Surguja & order dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P/2) by modifying posting order dated 15.09.2021 as Government High School Kuniya, District- Surguja. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been transferred on the ground of political inference. He would draw attention of this Court towards letter dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P/6), which is said to have been written by one Shri Gulab Kamro, Vice President, Surguja Area Tribal Development Authority and Member of Local Assembly (MLA), wherein, certain political allegations with regard to involvement of the petitioner that he is showing affiliation to some political party, have been levelled against the petitioner. In the said letter, it has also been recommended that the petitioner may be transferred from Koriya to other district. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been transferred due to administrative exigency, but from perusal for the order, the same does not reflect and no material has been placed by the State Government to demonstrate that there is administrative exigency of transferring lecturer from Baharsi, District- Koriya to Kuniya, District- Surguja. 4. The writ petition was listed for hearing on 05.05.2022 before this Court and stay of the transfer order was passed. This Court has directed the respondents No. 1 to 4 to file the return, but till date no return has been filed to rebut the allegation. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that petitioner has been transferred on the administrative ground, hence, the impugned transfer order is not liable to be interfered by this Court. 5. From perusal of letter dated 09.04.2021 (Annexure P/6), it is quite vivid that the petitioner has been transferred on the strength of letter written by Shri Gulab Kamro (MLA). It is pertinent to mention here that notice to respondent No. 5 has not been issued, but since the transfer order has issued by the State then it is incumbent upon the State to substantiate their action highlighting administrative reason for transferring the petitioner, but no such material is placed on record. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that notice to respondent No. 5 has not been issued, but since the transfer order has issued by the State then it is incumbent upon the State to substantiate their action highlighting administrative reason for transferring the petitioner, but no such material is placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that transfer is an incident of service and judicial interference should be in a very rare case. It is also correct that even if the recommendation of an MLA that by itself not vitiate the transfer order as it is duty of the representative of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against the official in 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 all the facts and circumstances of the individual case. (Please see: Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & others [ 2007 (8) SCC 150 )]. 7. From Annexure P/6, letter written by respondent No. 5, it is reflected that he has made certain allegations against the petitioner for his affiliation with the political party and also made allegation that the petitioner has made complaint against his personal assistant and representatives, therefore, he has recommended the transfer of the petitioner and also sent the proposed place of posting. This clearly demonstrates that it is transfer on behest of politician and a local MLA. 8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam & others, (2003) 11 SCC 740 , wherein it has been held at paragraph 3 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 sufficient 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.” 9. 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.” 9. In terms of undisputed glaring facts and the judgment of the Apex Court supra, the proceedings of transfer impugned in the case at hand would get vitiated as it is at the instance of a politician/MLA. In my view, political interference in transfers and posting of officers would result in politicization of public office, which would result in putting public efficiency and good administration to peril, the interference of any kind, be it written or oral. The result of the illegalities is the continuance of the fifth respondent recommending for transferring the petitioner out of Koriya District. Therefore, the final fold of illegality vitiates the entire proceedings on account of political interference. Thus, the transfer order dated 15.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) & 15.03.2022 (Annexure P/2) are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. However, liberty is granted to the State to pass fresh transfer order, if administrative exigency so arises. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed an application for urgent hearing of the matter on 24.04.2022 as the respondent authorities are not releasing the salary, therefore, direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to release salary of the petitioner. In view of such application, it is directed that salary of the petitioner be paid, if it has not been paid. 11. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed.