ORDER The petitioner in this Rule has been serving, at the material time, in the post of Nazir in the nazarath Section of the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Siliguri. The petitioner, according to his case, his been under Government service for over 24 years and his career is characterized with remarkable efficiency in the posts served by him from time to time. His entire service record all through has been remarkably good and has been favourabley dealt with by the authority concerned. The petitioner was posted by an order No. 63/Estt. Dated July 29, 1977 from the post of an L.D. Assistant in Siliguri Sub-Treasury to the post of Nazir, S.D.O.’s Office, Siliguri. The order which contained transfers and postings in all of 12 U.D. and L.D. Assistance of the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Siliguri to be in interest of public service. The petitioner has been serving with great effenecy in his new post which was appreciated by the authorities. According to the petitioner, he was not liable to transfer for a period of 5 years under Rule 109(ii) of the West Bengal Board’s Miscellaneous Rules 1955. The Rule is an follows :- “109. Clerks dealing with money any accounts :- (i) No Clerks (except Treasurers) holding responsible positions as heads of offices dealing with accounts and money can be allowed to hold their appointments uninterruptedly for an indefinite time. (ii) Clerk holding the post of Treasury. Accountant, Tansi Navis, Nazir, Head Clerk of the Cess and Excise Departments or Fine Clerk, and other clerical heads of departments dealing with accounts and money, are liable to transfer after 5 years ; their transfer is compulsory after 7 years. Such transfers may be to another department of the same office or to another office, and shall extend over a period of at least 6 months……….." 2. The petitioners’ case is that in direct violation of the above Rule an order was passed by the respondent No.3, the Sub-divisional officer, Siliguri which is as follows : - GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL Office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Siliguri Establishment Section ORDER Order No. 87/Estt. Date, Siliguri, the 2.9.78. The following transfers of staff is hereby ordered which will take effect immediately and all movements must be completed by 7.9.98 positively : - SI. No. Name of Assistants. New place of posting 1. Sri Rahin Paul, L.D. Assistant Nazarat Section (as Nazir). Date, Siliguri, the 2.9.78. The following transfers of staff is hereby ordered which will take effect immediately and all movements must be completed by 7.9.98 positively : - SI. No. Name of Assistants. New place of posting 1. Sri Rahin Paul, L.D. Assistant Nazarat Section (as Nazir). 2. Sri Kanak Bose " Certificate Section. 3. Sri Bidyut Chakraborty " Office of the J.L.R.O. Kharibari. 4. Smt. Swapna Goswami " Treasury (Compilation Sec.). 5. Sri Anindra Sinha " Establishment Section 6. Sri Anit Sinha " Certificate Section 7. Sri Jagadish Deb " Establishment Section 8. Sri Jagadish Roy " Normal Belief Section 9. Smt. Snehelata Dam " Office of the J.L.R.O.” Siliguri. 10. Smt. Reba Bhattacherjee " Treasury (Cheuqe Secti- on 11. Sri Nimai Roy " Office of the J.L.R.O. Kharibari 12. Sri Tapan Banerjee " Office of the S.L.R.O., Siliguri. 13. Smt. Amita Roy " Treasury (Compilation Sec) 14. Sri Bidhu Ranjan Das " Treasury (Cheque Sec) 15. Sri Gobinda Sarkar U.D. " Civil Defence. 16. Sri Tulsidas Chakraborty, U.d. R.R. Department and De " velopement Deptt. 17. Sri amal Ghose, L.D. " Treasury (Compilation Sec) Sd/- R.N. Gupta, 30.8.78 sub-divisional Officer, Siliguri Memo. No. 6440 (30) Estt. Dated, Siliguri the 2.9.78 Copy forwarded to : - Shri Kanak Bose, L.D. Asstt. Nezarat Section, S.D. Office, Siliguri Immediate compliance. Sd/-R.N. Gupta, 2.9.78. Sub-divisional Officer, Siliguri. 3. The petitioner states that the above order on the face indicates that it was not made in the public interest. The petitioner further states in his petition of motion as follows : - "7……………. that your petitioner submits that the impugned order of transfer of your petitioner is an outcome of the influence of the present Co-ordination Committee of the office of the Sub-divisional Office, Siliguri with which your petitioner has got conflict for some time pas due to political reasons. Hence, the impugned order of transfer is completely mala fide which has been passed under the influence and instigation of the said Co-ordination Committee upon the respondent No. 3" 4. The petitioner further submits that the order has come upon him as a penalty and will attach to his service career as a stigma in respect of his promotion in future. As such order of transfer within a year is unusual the order will act as a backdrop in considering his case for promotion. The petitioner further submits that the order has come upon him as a penalty and will attach to his service career as a stigma in respect of his promotion in future. As such order of transfer within a year is unusual the order will act as a backdrop in considering his case for promotion. The petitioner’s representation against the order has not been of ay result and the time for handing over charge was extended will October 20, 1978. 5. The petitioner on the above allegations moved this Court on September 29, 1978 by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Sub-divisional Officer, Siliguri and others to act in accordance with law and to cancel or withdraw the impugned order of transfer in respect of the petitioner. There was a further prayer for issue of writ in the nature of certiorary for quashing the aforesaid order. 6. The Court issued a rule on the same date calling upon the respondent to show cause as indicated above and the interim order was passed, staying operation of the impugned order till November 15, 1978 with liberty to the petitioner to apply for extension of the interim order. The interim order was extended from time to time and on January 31, 1979 on the suggestion of Mr. Gooptu appearing for the respondents it was ordered that the petitioner would neither join his transferred post nor work in the Nazarath Section but he would be entitled to draw his pay and allowances to which he is entitled till the disposal of the Rule. Further it was recorded that this order would not in any way effect the service record of the petitioner. 7. The respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Rabindra Nath Gupta, Sub-divisional Officer, Siliguri the respondent No. 3 affirmed on January 29, 1979 opposing the Rule. It was stated therein that the order of transfer of 17 assistants in the impugned order were for administrative reasons and in interest of public service. it was further stated that these were routine transfers and the services career of the petitioner was not taken in consideration at the time of passing the order. It was stated therein that the order of transfer of 17 assistants in the impugned order were for administrative reasons and in interest of public service. it was further stated that these were routine transfers and the services career of the petitioner was not taken in consideration at the time of passing the order. It was also stated that under Rule 106 of the Board’s Miscellaneous Rules which have no statutory force but are executive orders, the competent authorities namely Commissioner and Collectors have full power to transfer clerk, from one office headquarter or sub-division to another within their division and District respectively as they may think expedient for public service Accordingly the order even if in violation of Rule 109 was not unauthorised on the alleged around of its violation It was further stated that Rule 109 was directory and not mandatory and the holders of the post do not derive any right from those rules, It was reiterated that the transfer was in public interest and for administrative reasons alone. It was neither a penalty nor a stigma in the service career of the petitioner and if the order was not given effect to the administration in his office would be put to jeopardy. In regard to the allegations in paragraph 7 of the petition cited above, it was stated as follows : "Statements and allegations made in paragraph 7 of the said application are denied, I say that the allegations made therein are false and false to the knowledge of the petitioner, He bad made those wild and imaginary allegations with mala fide motive of misleading this Hon'ble Court. I deny that the order of transfer in an out-come influence of Co-ordination Committee on me and the impugned order of the transfer is mala fide as the same was paned under the influence and instigation of the Co-ordination Committee as alleged or at all" 8. It was further stated that the petitioner bas been really a L.D. Assistant and was entrusted with the handling of cash and was being called a Nazir. 9. The petitioner filed his affidavit-in-reply affirmed on February 19, 1979 in which it was denied the impugned order of transfer was for administrative reason and interest of public service or the order was only a routine transfer. 9. The petitioner filed his affidavit-in-reply affirmed on February 19, 1979 in which it was denied the impugned order of transfer was for administrative reason and interest of public service or the order was only a routine transfer. None of other 16 Assistants mentioned in the order of transfer holding any post mentioned in Rule 109(ii) of the said Rule. The petitioner reiterated that the: order of transfer which was mala fide would doom his career and act as a stigma at the time of consideration of his future promotion. It was reiterated that the Co-ordination Committee had been influencing and instigating the respondent to pass an order of transfer. Since the considerable time before September 1978, the respondent No.3 become so violent against the petitioner at such instigation of the Co-ordination Committee that there was an assault on him by the said officer at his residence which was duly reported to the Officer-in-charge, Siliguri Police Station and leave was craved for referring to the same at the time of hearing though no paper was in fact produced. It was stated that the transfer order was passed as the petitioner belonged to the rival police group namely the Employees Federation. 10. At the hearing of the Rule Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner did not dispute the position that notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 109 it was always competent for the Government to pass orders of transfer at any time of any bolder of Civil Posts, if so required in public interest as Haled by the respondent No 3 It was however submitted that there was no special reasons for making such order of transfer when such transfer according to the authority was merely a routine transfer on the fact of the provision of Rule 109 (ii) This Rule 109 provides the guideline for such transfer unless there ill any supervening or compelling circumstances in public interest for a transfer. 11. Mr. Mukherjee further contened that the allegations have been made that the transfer was at the instigation of and under the influence the Co-ordination Committee and in the circumstances it was not possible to make any further averment of facts about the mala fide nature of the order of transfer not being in public interest but at such behest. 12. Mr. Mukherjee further contened that the allegations have been made that the transfer was at the instigation of and under the influence the Co-ordination Committee and in the circumstances it was not possible to make any further averment of facts about the mala fide nature of the order of transfer not being in public interest but at such behest. 12. Mr. Gooptu on the other hand submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled to any protection under Rule 109(ii) as he was holding the substantive post of an L.D. Clerk and not that of the Nazir. Further the Board". Miscellaneous Rule are mere executive instructions and have not been framed under the provisions of and statute or statutory rule of service. Accordingly such Rule are not enforceable in this jurisdiction. He also referred to the provisions of Article 226 of the constitution as amended by the Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act which proceeds the Court from entertaining such application when there is an alternative remedy available to the aggrieved party for redress of his grievances if any. He referred to the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 which under Rule 15 provides for appeal if the order is considered to be penalty as contended by the petitioner. Further the averments about the mala fide nature of the order which were unfounded, were too bare in absence of any particulars for any cognizance. Accordingly there should not be any interference by this Court in this respect as such interference would affect the administration of a Government office which on judicial norms should never be done. 13. Mr. Mukerjee in reply submitted that the petitioner was holding the post of Nazir and as such Rule 109(ii) would be applicable which even if directory provide the guidelines even of routine transfer. Further the Rules though not statutory are as much binding on the Government in absence of any other statutory rules and he referred to the decisions in support which will be presently considered. 14. We shall first consider if the impugned order is mala fide. Further the Rules though not statutory are as much binding on the Government in absence of any other statutory rules and he referred to the decisions in support which will be presently considered. 14. We shall first consider if the impugned order is mala fide. It is now settled that an executive or administrative decision is liable to be struck down if it is mala fide or for collateral purpose the administrative order, not otherwise justifiable, come under courts scrutiny if there are allegations of mala fides or colourable exercise of power behind such orders, even if they are file from violation of constitutional or statutory provisions the principle bas been extended to cue, where it is established on material that the imposed order is mala fide or it is manifest on materials on record that the order has not been paned for the professed purpose of public or administrative interest or exigency of service. 15. It bas been laid down in Kadarnath v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 220 , following S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72 , that it is for the person seeking to in validate an order to establish the charge of bad faith. It has to be remembered that such a charge may be made easily or without a sense of responsibility and that it why it is necessary for the courts to examine such allegations with care and attention, in the case before us the petitioner bas urged that the Co-ordination Committee influenced and instigated the Sub-divisional Officer, the competent authority for making the impugned order of transfer. It may be of interest in this connection to note the statement of objects and reasons of the West Bengal Fire Services (Maintenance and Discipline) Repealing Act, 1978 whereby West Bengal Fire Service (Maintenance and Discipline) Act of 1974 was repealed. The West Bengal Fire Services (Maintenance of Discipline) Act, 1974 which replaces the West Bengal ordinance No. XIII of 1974 containing similar provisions, provided for the maintenance of discipline among the members of the fire brigade so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties. It was provided therein inter alia that no member of the fire brigade without sanction of the Government or authority prescribed in that behalf should be a member of or be associated with any trade union, labour union, political association. It was provided therein inter alia that no member of the fire brigade without sanction of the Government or authority prescribed in that behalf should be a member of or be associated with any trade union, labour union, political association. In the Repealing Act of 1978 in its statement of objects and reasons it was stated as follows : - " In accordance with the declared policy of the State Government not to interfere in the legitimang trade union activities of the public servants. Government considers it necessary that the aforesaid Act should be repealed." 16. The concept of the public servants being free form any political association or affiliation on which their trade union activities are obviously bases has long record. The legitimate trade union activities of public servants like the right to forth associations or unions, of secure appropriate terms and conditions of service and to enforce demands in respect thereof through legal means for their real station ate not well resognised in all republican governments. Even so such trade union activities cannot extend to interference with or influencing the affairs of public administration which includes posting and transfer of the public servants. If therefore, it is established that there has been such interference by any union of public servants or such fact is patent on the face of record the Court will not be slow to issue appropriate order to keep the administration on it even keel. 17. In the case before us exception making bare allegation without any particulars it has not been established to the satisfaction of the court that there bas been such interference or instigation as alleged. The orders relates to 17 officers of the office of the Sub-divisional Officer. Siliguri and is not confined to the petitioner alone. There is no objection by any other public servant affected by the order against such order on the grounds advanced in this petition of motion while the additional reasons in the affidavit-in-reply cannot be entertained as not being incorporated in the original petition for no ostensible reason and the same bas also been not established. There is no objection by any other public servant affected by the order against such order on the grounds advanced in this petition of motion while the additional reasons in the affidavit-in-reply cannot be entertained as not being incorporated in the original petition for no ostensible reason and the same bas also been not established. In such state of affairs and in absence of other facts except bare allegations as indicated above which have been vehemently denied by the Sub-divisional Officer, it is not possible to bold that the impugned order of the transfer is based on such instigation or influence by the Co-ordination Committee as alleged. This contention accordingly is rejected as not established. 18. Mr. Gooptu contended that the petitioner had the remedy under the service rule a referred to above if he was aggrieved by any order, by preferring an appeal against such order to the appropriate authority under Rule 8. This contention appeared to be unfounded; It is not the case of the petitioner as argued before me that the order is by way of penalty nor the orders as it appears cases a stigma in the service record of the petitioner. It has in effected been stated by the Sub-divisional Officer that in passing the order of transfer the service career of the public servant was not taken in consideration and transfers were routine transfers. Accordingly there was no scope for appeal against the order the petitioner thus has no other alternative remedy which would disentitle him to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (Forty Second) Amendment Act, 1976 on which reliance has been placed by the Government Pleader in support of his contention about the maintainability of the application. 19. It has not been stated in the Impugned order that it was made in public interest and absence of this statement bas bean assailed as rendering the order invalid It has been stated in the affidavit filed by the Sub-divisional Officers that the transfers were in public interest. 19. It has not been stated in the Impugned order that it was made in public interest and absence of this statement bas bean assailed as rendering the order invalid It has been stated in the affidavit filed by the Sub-divisional Officers that the transfers were in public interest. Absence of such words does not in my opinion, render the order invalid when it does not appear manifestly so unless, the order is Vitiated otherwise for mala fides or in excess of powers or in violation of mandator, provisions having the force of law or binding on the Government or causes any prejudice in the service career of the incumbent. It will also be without warrant of law and against judicial norms to probe into the reasons of the transfer in the normal state of affairs, as the administrative of his office when the order does not suffer from any the vires indicated above. 20. The position is otherwise if the order has any civil or evil consequence on the service career of the incumbent. There is no dispute that the petitioner in a L. D. Assistant, posted as Nazir at this material time. He has however no lieo in the post of Nazir nor will there be any reduction in his rank or emoluments by the order of transfer and posting in the Certificate Section. It bas also been said that the career of the petitioner, was not taken into consideration in making the order of transfer and it is not a stigma in his services career nor will affect his present status or future prospects since the transfer of seventeen incumbents in the office arc routine transfers. 21. It is now to be seen if the order of transfer is in violation of any salutatory rule or order binding on the Government. The Board's Miscellaneous Rules do not appear to have been named under any statute of Under any rule framed under any statute. Even so it has been held in Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 984 that though certain clauses of the relevant memorandum were in the nature of administrative instruction issued by the State Government in exercise of its executive power not having the force or law, the Stat. Even so it has been held in Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 984 that though certain clauses of the relevant memorandum were in the nature of administrative instruction issued by the State Government in exercise of its executive power not having the force or law, the Stat. Government can not at its own sweet will depart from it without rational justification and fix In artificial date for commencing the length of continuous service in the case of some individual officers only for the purpose of giving thorn seniority in contravention of that clause. It was observed in paragraph 8 that where no statutory rule are made regulation recruitment or condition of services the State Government always can in exercise of its executive powers issue administrative instruction providing for recruitment and laying down conditions of service. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shad Mohan AIR 1977 Sc 2411 It was held that instruction issued by the Government to guide the authorities in passing orders of premature retirement are for securing uniformity and binding on Government and could not be violated to the prejudice of the Government servant. On the above authorities, it will appear that even if Board’s Miscellaneous Rules are not statutory they are as much binding on the Government as any statutory rule in absence of such statutory rule in respect thereof and can be departed from only for rational or cogent reasons. 22. Rule 109(ii) relied on by the petitioner on it terms does not appear to be mandatory in respect of the liability for transfer after five year’s service of the officers mentioned therein. The position seems to be otherwise in respect of transfer after seven years service in such posts which has been made compulsory. The liability for transfer after five year’s service in such posts appears to be directory and merely provides guidelines and does not imply or mean that no transfer can be made within five year’s of service of any holder of such posts. In fact, the right of the authority to transfer any holder of such posts at any time for exigency of service has not been and cannot be disputed. Even then is contended that since the transfers are routine transfers, the guidelines should have been followed by the authority concerned when no exigency has been pleaded. 23. In fact, the right of the authority to transfer any holder of such posts at any time for exigency of service has not been and cannot be disputed. Even then is contended that since the transfers are routine transfers, the guidelines should have been followed by the authority concerned when no exigency has been pleaded. 23. As we have already indicated, in absence of any of the infirmities in the order or decision as indicated above, there is no occasion or warrant for a probe into the reasons for routine transfer of 17 persons by a Court of law when no prejudice is established to have been followed by the authority concerned when no exigency ahs been pleaded. 23. As we have already indicated, in absence of any of the infirmities in the order or decision as indicated above, there is no occasion or warrant for a probe into the reasons for routine transfer of 17 persons by a Court of law when no prejudice is established to have been caused to the holder of such post in respect of their present status in service or the future prospects by the impugned order. Further in the context of the attending circumstances in absence of any prejudice to the incumbent or of any infirmity, legal or factual, in the impugned order, it will be undermining the authority of an the discipline in the administration if the Court interferes with the office administration of the competent authority in the Government. In view of the above position, in absence of proof of mala fides in the order which is the sheet anchor or the petitioner’s attack against the order of his transfer and of absence of any infirmity therein, the application fails and the Rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated except that the respondent No.3 will grant reasonable time to the petitioner to join his transferred post. There will be not order for costs in the circumstances. Rule discharged.