M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are all senior auditors working in the Co-operative department. All of them were working in different societies in the district of Dharwar. Aggrieved by an order dated 4-6-80 passed by the Deputy Chief Auditor of co-operative Societies, Belgaum district, belgaum, they have approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to have the same set aside. ( 2 ) THE impugned order is made by the first respondent transferring the petitioners among others to various places in the division (Belgaum ). Three contentions are advanced by the learned Counsel sri Goulay appearing for the petitioners. Firstly, he has contended that the order is not in public interest. But, the impugned order states that the orders have been made in public interest The consolidated order relates to 64 Senior auditors in the division and involves more than 4 districts. Apart from the assertions made by the petitioners that it is not made in public interest, no material is placed before the court to substantiate the assertions. Therefore, the order must be read as it is. I, therefore, hold that the order is made in public interest and js not motivated by any extraneous considerations on the part of the first respondent the Deputy Chief Auditor of co-operative Societies in Karnataka, belgaum division, Belgaum. ( 3 ) THE second contention advanced by sri Goulay is that the impugned order which is at Annexure "c" is violative of art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the District Co-operative Officers who also belong to the Co-operative Department have not been similarly transferred. Only the cadre of Senior Auditors has been subjected to this treatment for large scale transfers in the Division in spite of the fact that several official memorandums and circulars of the Government had imposed some restrictions on the transfer of Class Ill-employees outside the Districts. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that the transfer of one cadre of officials by a consolidated order in any way attracts art. 14 of the Constitution, because the same order does not contain any transfers made in another cadre of the same department. It is the concerned authority who is the best judge to decide whom he should transfer or which particular cadre officials should be transferred at any given point of time. 14 of the Constitution, because the same order does not contain any transfers made in another cadre of the same department. It is the concerned authority who is the best judge to decide whom he should transfer or which particular cadre officials should be transferred at any given point of time. It is common knowledge that general transfers are made in all departments, once in a year between march and June. That period generally facilitates transfers on large scale in view of the academic year in the Education department which starts from June and ends in March. Merely because the impugned order at Annexure "c" does not state that District Co-operative Officers have also not been transferred, this Court cannot infer that there has been no transfers of those officials in the Division at all. In any event, the duties and functions of the Senior Auditors are distinct and different from that of District Co-operative officers who belong to a different cadre and perform different duties, though they may also belong to Class-III in the classification of the officers under the karnataka Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and it cannot be said that the petitioners and district Co-operative Officers are similarly situated persons. I, therefore, hold that the respondents have power to make reasonable classification of officers into different cadres which is permissibje under rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1957. This is in the interest of public administration and there is nothing wrong in such classification. The petitioners fall into different cadres and form one class of officials in their department. Their transfers cannot be said to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the second contention is liable to be rejected. ( 4 ) THE last contention urged by the learned Counsel is that the State has no power to transfer the petitioners outside the District It is contended that it could be clearly inferred from the manner in which the petitioners have been transferred outside the District that the respondents have cast a stigma on the petitioners that they are fit only to serve outside their native Districts. Explaining this contention the learned Counsel stated that this must necessarily be inferred otherwise there was no reason for the respondents to effect the transfers outside the districts. This contention also is without any legal foundation. Explaining this contention the learned Counsel stated that this must necessarily be inferred otherwise there was no reason for the respondents to effect the transfers outside the districts. This contention also is without any legal foundation. It is true that certain official memorandums have issued directions to the concerned authorities not to effect transfers of Class-III and IV officials outside the districts as far as possible. But these official memorandums do not confer any legal right on the government servants belonging to Class iii and IV unless there is a specific statutory rule prohibiting such transfers outside the Districts. It is not disputed by the petitioners Counsel that they are all servants of respondent-State of Karnataka and that they all belong to the cadre which is a divisionwise cadre As is apparent from the order of the transfers and as made out by the petitioners there have been inter District transfers within the divisions Such inter District transfers cannot be said to lead any reasonable person to infer that officers of any of the districts are unable to discharge their duties in that District, From Annexure "d" produced by the petitioners, it is seen that they have all entered service between the years 1958 and 1969. All of them have been working at a particular place from the begining of 1978 to about the later part of 1979. The said Annexure also indicates that they all have been in dharwar district and have been transferred outside the district by the impugned order to Karwar, Belgaum and Bijapur. It would be irrational to consider that transfer outside the district of public servants who belong to a particular district would amount to a stigma. By a simple rule the respondent State can transfer its officers to any part of the State compulsorily. In fact, it has been constantly pointed out that to encourage inter District and inter State transfer after States re-organisation would bring about greater emotional integration of the people who came from different States prior to 1-11-1956. It is difficult for a Court of law to assess the needs of the Government when it utilises the services of its employees in different parts of the State in the interest of public administration. The respondents are the best judges as to where the services of the employees should be best utilised. It is difficult for a Court of law to assess the needs of the Government when it utilises the services of its employees in different parts of the State in the interest of public administration. The respondents are the best judges as to where the services of the employees should be best utilised. I am unable to accept the last contention urged also for the reasons given above. The impugned order of transfers does not contravene any provision of law. It has not been made with any ulterior motive or with malafide intention. Petitions are, therefore, dismissed without issuing rule. --- *** --- .