JUDGMENT 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash his transfer order dated ,June 26, 1982. In June 1980, the petitioner was posted at Udaipur as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Junior Scale. By Memo No. Staff 1-17 dated June 17, 1980 in pursuance of DCPAT, New Delhi letter No. 26-39,,80 PE1 dated June 26, 1980, the Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur transferred the petitioner and posted him as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Jodhpur in Senior Time Scale of Group 'A' vide Ex. 1. In pursuance of Lx. 1, the petitioner joined at jodhpur as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices on July 11, 1980 and since then, he was continuing in service as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices in Senior Time Scale of Grade 'A'. The petitioner was transferred from Jodhpur to Jaipur and was posted as Assistant Post Master General (PLl) Circle Officer, Jaipur vide Memo No. staff/1-17, IPS 'A' dated June 26, 1982 issued from the office of PMG, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur (Ex. 3). The petitioner challenges the order Ex. 3 on various grounds. One of the grounds is that the Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur is incompetent to effect the transfer of the petitioner and petitioner's transfer can only be effected by the Director General under the Schedule of powers laid down in the Post & Telegraphs Manual, vol. III. The other grounds of challenge are that the transfer has not been brought about on account of any administrative exigency or in the interest of service. But, it has been brought about under the undue pressure of the Trade Union Leaders and the transfer is effected by arbitrary exercise of power taking into account extraneous considerations. The transfer is also in disregard of tenure policy. Further, the order of transfer suffers from the vice of malice in law and malice in fact, as the order has been passed by the Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, who is biased and prejudiced against the petitioner. The petitioner in his writ petition has averred certain events. The petitioner made a surprise visit of the Head Post Office, Jodhpur on May 12, 1981 at 10.05 a.m. and found that the counter-clerks and Assistant Post Masters were not present and he marked 'X' in the attendance register. The petitioner in his writ petition has averred certain events. The petitioner made a surprise visit of the Head Post Office, Jodhpur on May 12, 1981 at 10.05 a.m. and found that the counter-clerks and Assistant Post Masters were not present and he marked 'X' in the attendance register. Thereupon, the staff went on illegal strike and the employees of the Head Post Office also instigated the employees of Sardarpura Post Office to go on strike. The petitioner also visited Sardarpura Post Office, Jodhur. The petitioner submitted his report to the Director Postal Services. After receipt of the inquiry report conducted at the behest of the Director Postal Services. ,Jodhpur, the petitioner decided to take action against the guilty employees. The petitioner also effected transfers of Shri M.M. Vajpayee, R. R. Soni and Ashok Kumar and he also ordered re-test of Shri S.D. Paliwal. Shri S.D. Paliwal, without complying the orders, went on medical leave and did nest submit himself for test. The Post Mister General succumbed to undue pressure of Trade Union Leaders and ordered to keep the transfers in abeyance and Shri S.D. Paliwal was ordered to continue at Jaisalmer. In order to dislodge the petitioner, even the employees decided to launch Dharna' outside the Head Post Office. They staged 'Dharna' from May 3, 1982 to May 14, 1982 and according to the petitioner, the Trade Union Leaders approached the Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, who assured them for redressing their grievances and thereupon, the 'Dharna' was withdrawn. While withdrawing the 'Dharna', the Trade Union Leaders openly declared that the Post Master General has assured them to transfer the petitioner. It was also averred that Shri S.D. Paliwal even went to the extent of launching a private complaint against him to the competent court at Jaisalmer for the off races under sections 323 and 500, I.P.C. The petitioner also averred that he was called by the Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur and in response to the same the petitioner attended the office on May 15, 1982. During the meeting, the Post Master General called upon the to cancel the transfer orders and also to drop the proceedings under the Fundamental Rule 17A. During the meeting, the Post Master General called upon the to cancel the transfer orders and also to drop the proceedings under the Fundamental Rule 17A. The petitioner, thereupon, submitted that he received no representations against the transfer order and on the contrary, the transferred employees have proceeded on medical sick and with regard to the proceedings under rule 17A, the same can be dropped only by P & T Board. Thereupon the petitioner was threatened of his transfer outside the Rajasthan Circle. It was also stated by the petitioner that the Post Master General showed the copies of the telegrams keeping in abeyance the transfer orders. These are the material facts relating to the grounds, on which the transfer order is sought to be quashed. 2. A return to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Union of India through the Director General (P & T), New Delhi (Non-petitioner No.1), Post Mister General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur (Non-petitioner No. 2) and Director, Postal Services, Westen Region, Rajasthan, Jodhpur (Non-petitioner No. 3). Grounds, on which the transfer order is sought to be quashed have been refuted and it has been asserted that the order of transfer has been passed by the competent authority. It was pleaded that the Post & Telegraphs Manual are the administrative instructions and it contains a Schedule of powers. The Director General had powers of transfer of Senior Class I Officers, but this position remained only up till 27.5. 1970, when the said powers were delegated to the Deputy Director General. However, this schedule was further reviewed and it was decided that these powers in relation to Senior Class I Officers should be exercised by the Member concerned. Copies of these amendments dated May 27, 1970 and November 7, 1975 are Ex. R/3 and Ex. R/4. It was alleged that the petitioner's transfer was ordered by the Member Postal Operation on the file and consequent to the conveying of the said decision of Member Postal Operation by Director Postal Stall, the Post Master General issued the order of transfer. It was also stated that now the Post Master General has been invested with the powers of transfer vide instructions dated July 21, 1982 (Anna. R/5). The petitioner's transfer was effected having regard to the Administrative exigency and was not actuated by malice. It was also stated that now the Post Master General has been invested with the powers of transfer vide instructions dated July 21, 1982 (Anna. R/5). The petitioner's transfer was effected having regard to the Administrative exigency and was not actuated by malice. The other allegations regarding the abuse or misuse of power, malicious or arbitrary exercise of powers or affecting transfer taking into account of any extraneous considerations, were denied. The non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 further referred to in the return, the conduct of the petitioner at Udaipur and it was alleged that the Post Master General, after taking into consideration the over all situation and the totality of the circumstances formed a bonafide opinion, in the interest of service, to effect the petitioner's transfer. The allegations made in para 1.5 of the writ petition relating to the petitioner's meeting with ire Post Master General on May 15, 1982 were denied. 3. Shri B.T. Manghani, Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur (Non-petitioner No.5) has filed reply in the form of reply-affidavit together with an independent accompanying affidavit. In his affidavit, he has denied the accusations made against him and he also denied the facts, which are said to have transpired in the meeting of the petitioner with him on May 15, 1982. He denied that he Trade Union Leaders ever approached him between 3rd to 15th of May, 1982 and an assurane was ever given to them by him. As regards, the transfer order,he stated that it was issued by him incompliance of the orders of the Member Postal Operations Shri M.L. Gaind duly conveyed by the Director Postal Staff Shri v. Balaguru . The issuance of transfer order was simply an executive conveyance of the order passed by Shri M.L. Gaind, Member Postal Operations. 4. The petitioner submitted his rejoinder to the reply filed by the non- petitioners No. 1 to 3 and non-petitioner No. 5. In his rejoinder, lie explained hip conduct at Udaipur and he further stated that so far as the amendment in the Schedule of powers is concerned Ex. R/3 and Ex. R/4 are not relevant. Firstly, Ex. R/4 relates to the powers delegated to the officers of the Directorate and secondly those letters cannot over-ride the Manual. Any change in the Manual is required to be published in the official Gazette. He also staled that a perusal of Ex. R/3 and Ex. R/4 are not relevant. Firstly, Ex. R/4 relates to the powers delegated to the officers of the Directorate and secondly those letters cannot over-ride the Manual. Any change in the Manual is required to be published in the official Gazette. He also staled that a perusal of Ex. R/3 reveals that in continuation of the letter dated March 17, 1970, further delegation of powers was made. It was also stated that the action of the Post Master General keeping in abeyance the order of transfer was wholly without jurisdiction as there was no representation made by any of the transferred employees, and the employees Union could not espouse their cause. Action was taken in disragard of para 118 (c) of the Post & Telegraphs Manual, vol. II. I shall be referring to some of the events little in detail, while dealing with the contentions of the parties. 5. I have heard Mr. M. R. Singhivi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. S. Shishodia assisted by Mr. J. P. Joshi, learned counsel for the non- petitioners No. I to 3 and Mr. M. Mridul, learned counsel for Shri B. T. Manghani, non-petitioner No. 5. 6. The first and foremost contentions, on which the original writ petition was founded by Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel of the petitioner, is that it was only the Director General, who could effect the petitioner's transfer under the Schedule of Administrative powers as provided in Schedule I (c) of the Post & Telegraphs Manw,1, vol III and the Post Master General is incompetent to effect the petitioner's transfer. The powers of the PMG are given in Schedule 2' item 6. which do not extend to SSPOS. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this plea of the non-petitioners is an after thought that in fact the transfer is effected by Member Postal Operations and the Post Master General simply issued the order in compliance. His alternative submission is that firstly, Ex. R/4 cannot be pressed into service as it is restricted to the powers delegated to the officers of the Directorate, secondly Ex. R/4 has not in any way amended the Schedule of Administrative powers of the Director General as provided in the P & T Manual, vol. III. Besides that, Ex. His alternative submission is that firstly, Ex. R/4 cannot be pressed into service as it is restricted to the powers delegated to the officers of the Directorate, secondly Ex. R/4 has not in any way amended the Schedule of Administrative powers of the Director General as provided in the P & T Manual, vol. III. Besides that, Ex. R/4 has not been published in the Official Gazette as required under rule 29 of the P & T Manual, vol. IV. The amendment to the manual can only be brought about in the manner provided in the manual and not otherwise. Had there been any amendment in the Manual, it would have been issued in the form, in which Ex. R/5 has been issued and slips to that effect would have been appended on The respective paras of the Manual. Thus, according to Mr. Singhvi, the Director General alone continued to possess the power of transfer as provided in item No. 5 under the heading 'Transfer'. The Director General alone had the full powers to transfer the officers below the rank of the five specified categories of the officers. The petitioner, being below the rank of the five specified categories of the officers, could only be transferred by the Director General. 7. The first question that arises for consideration is as to who has passed the order of the petitioner's transfer. The non-petitioners have made the original record of notings available to this Court. From a perusal of the notings, it would appear that on receipt of the letter from the Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, a note was put up on March 24, 1982. The Post Master General expressed that he is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be shifted from one place to another place in Rajasthan Circle and he suggested that Shri Ganguly may be transferred outside the Circle, in his own interest and in the interest of the Administration. This note passed into the hands of several authorities, who appended their notes and ultimately on April 8, 1982, the Deputy Director General (Postal) noted that "we may perhaps ask the Post Master General if he is so satisfied to shift Shri Ganguly from out of Jodhpur Division to another Division or Circle office. It may not be administratively proper to shift Shri Ganguly outside Rajasthan at this stage". It may not be administratively proper to shift Shri Ganguly outside Rajasthan at this stage". The Member Postal Operations appended the following note "Yes, in view of the portion marked 'Z' of Post Master General's letter at 2/c". In PMG's letter dated January 27, 1982, the portion marked 'Z' was to the effect "At jodhpur, personally I feel the handling of staff by Shri Ganguly is not fair or tactful". Thereafter, a draft D.O. was put up for approval. Then a D.O. No. 4-19 SPC dated April 20, 1982 was sent by Shri v. Balaguru, Director (Staff Postal) to Shri Manghani, with reference to his D.O. letter No. PMG/Con/Misc. dated January 27, 1982 to Shri v. E. Arunachalam. Member (Postal Operations), P & T Board, New Delhi, whereby, it was communicated to the Post Master General that Shri Ganguly may be transferred out of Jodhpur Division to another Division or Circle Office, if he so considers necessary and justified. 8. Immediately, after receipt of the above D.O. dated April 20, 1982, the PMG did not issue any order of transfer. From the subsequent notings on the record, it would appear that the matter was taken up on the letter of Shri Ashok Gehlot, Member Parliament addressed to Shri Yogendra Makwana, Deputy Minister Communications. The PMG had been the Deputy Director General, P & T Board, New Delhi, who noted that the PMG feels that it would not be correct on the part of the administration to transfer Shri Ganguly at this stage. Any action at this juncture will create an impression that the administration has yielded to the pressure of the Union. The PMG had mentioned to him that the staff' of Jodhpur Division had started Dharna' and the staff is also planning 'Dharna' before the Circle Office. In his note dated May 15, 1982, the Deputy Director General (Postal). P & T Board also noted that the PMG has stated that the relations between the staff and Shri Ganguly had become strained and he may shift Shri Ganguly out of jodhpur at an appropriate time. Thereafter, the Member (P.O.) appended his note that he has discussed the case with the PMG and he as already proposing to Post Shri Ganguly as Assistant Post Master General in the interest of administration. Thereafter, the Member (P.O.) appended his note that he has discussed the case with the PMG and he as already proposing to Post Shri Ganguly as Assistant Post Master General in the interest of administration. After more than a month, came the order of petitioner's transfer Ex.3 dated June 26, 1982 issued by the Post Master General. 9. It is true that the order was issued by the PMG, but it cannot be said that the PMG issued the order of his own as it the power vests in him. On January 27, 1932, he moved the Member (P. O.) for the petitioner's transfer out side the circle at the time of next change, as according to him, it will be good for him arid for administration. He also pointed out that change should not be ordered as on the suggestion of the Union, but in usual course, and in the present circumstance , he can hardly change him elsewhere. The letter was written by the PMG with reference to the D.O. Letter of the Member(PO) dated December 28, 1981 regarding the transfer of the petitioner. In that connection, the PMG wrote to the Member (PO) that the question of his becoming due for transfer under rotational transfer orders, does not arise as the petitioner has been there for 1 year and six months only. It appears that when papers were moved for transfer approval of the petitioner's transfer, was given by the Member (PO) as is clear from the note made by the Member (PO) Learning no date. As the power of transfer vested in the Member (PO) in accordance with Ex. R/4, so the papers went up to him and he gave his approval and consequent to that approval Ex.3 was issued by the Post Master General. Shri Singhvi tried to place undue emphasis on it that this case of the non-petitioners should not be believed, that at any stage, an approval was given by the Member(PO) as it was not brought to light earlier. In my opinion, only on this account, the non- petitioners' case cannot be dis-believed. The notings are made in the ordinary course of business and in my opinion, reliance can be placed on the notings. It has been stated at the hat that the then Member Shri M.L. Gaind retired on April 30, 1982. In my opinion, only on this account, the non- petitioners' case cannot be dis-believed. The notings are made in the ordinary course of business and in my opinion, reliance can be placed on the notings. It has been stated at the hat that the then Member Shri M.L. Gaind retired on April 30, 1982. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the notings were prepared afterwards, although a definite case was not set up by the non- petitioners in the beginning that lie I'MG issued the transfer order pursuant to apps oval of the Member(PO). Thus, in view of the noting of the Member(PO), it will be taken that the order of transfer has emanated from him. Even when, it was left to the discretion of the PMG, still it will be deemed that the order has been made by the Member(PO). I may profitably refer here a decision of this Court in Nagaur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kana Ram and other(1979 W.L.N. 408) . In that case. the services of the respondent were retrenched by the order of the Administrator. Previously, he didn't seek any approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. But, fresh orders were issued after approval of the Registrar in supersession of the earlier order. A question arose as to whether the order of retrenchment is of the Administrator or the Registrar, who is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It was held that when the retrenchment was approved by the Registrar, so it was the order made by the Registrar Aeliance was placed in that case on the two decisions namely: Nayagegh Co-operative Central Bank v. Narayan A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 112) and Deokinandan v. Agra District Co-operative Bank (1972 (7) S.L.R. 803) . In the present case as well, the Member (PO) gave his 'yes' which was conveyed to the PMG and thereupon, transfer order was issued by the PMG, so it will be taker that the order was of the Member (PO). 10. The next question, that arises is, as to whether the Member(PO) was competent to effect the petitioner's transfer. For determination of this question Ex. R/4 is a complete answer. Ex. R/4 is a copy of the letter No.3-7/70 SPT dated November 7, 1975 issued from the Ministry of Communications. By this letter, the powers have been delegated with regard to the postings and transfers. For determination of this question Ex. R/4 is a complete answer. Ex. R/4 is a copy of the letter No.3-7/70 SPT dated November 7, 1975 issued from the Ministry of Communications. By this letter, the powers have been delegated with regard to the postings and transfers. Such power is delegated on the Member concerned in respect of the Junior and Senior Time Scale Officers of Class I Services. 11. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ex. R/4 has not been published in the Gazette as required under the Rule 29 of the Post and Telegraph Manual, Vol. IV. Notification regarding conferment of power by delegation should have been published in the Gazette of India. It this connection, it has been argued by Mr. Shishodia that there is no application of this rule as it does not envisage the publication of such a notification, whereby, the powers of transfer are delegated. It may be mentioned that the first part of rule 29 provides that all important events in the official career of the Gazetted Officers should be notified in the Gazette of Government of India. But the latter part of the Rule lay, down that if the officer is required to exercise statuary powers other powers, which are conferred on him, they are also required to he notified. I agree with Shri Singhvi that rule 29 does include within its embrace publication of such notification, where power of transfer is delegated, as it is nothing but conferment of power by delegation, so it would be conveyed tinder the expression "other powers conferred on the holders of the post". However, from the perusal of rule 29 it would be clear, that the publication is not imperative. It is only desirable. The use of' the word 'should" make it clear. Non-publication of the notification would not render the notification ineffective. 12. It may further by stated that the P & T Manual does not possess any statutory character and rules embodied in the Manual are not statutory rules. To my mind, they are only administrative instructions for the guidance of the officers and so they have no force of law as such. Mr. 12. It may further by stated that the P & T Manual does not possess any statutory character and rules embodied in the Manual are not statutory rules. To my mind, they are only administrative instructions for the guidance of the officers and so they have no force of law as such. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to note No. 15, on cases in Himayat Ali v. Union of India ( 1982 Lab I.C NOC (All.) 9), where it was observed that Posts and Telegraph Manual being Government directions in the absence of Rules have the force of law. It may be pointed out that the Manual has been considered to be in the nature of Government directions and in the absence of any modified direction by the Government, they can undoubtedly, be enforced against the Government because the Government professes to be governed by them. Where the Government has issued directions or instructions changing any existing rule in the Manual then those directions or instructions would prevail over the rules contained in the Manual. 13. It is common ground between the parties that the Manual has not been framed or issued under any Act or Statute or in the exercise of any rule making power. They have simply been issued in exercise of the executive authority. Viewed in this light, the non-publication of Ex. R/4 would be of no consequence and would not render Ex. R/4 ineffective. The non-petitioners have not made available the letter dated November 7, 1975 of the Ministry of Communication. But on that account contents of Ex. R/4 need not be doubted and the same have not been disputed before me. 14. It is also argued by Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner that Ex. R/4 does not amend the Schedule of powers contained in the Manual and till the Schedule of powers is amended, letter Ex.R/4 should not be taken to have amended the powers. Amendment should have been made in the Schedule of powers in the manner in which Ex.R5 has been issued. As already stated that P & T Manual is not statutory in character, so the Manual can even be amended and modified by issuance of the letters by the Government in the exercise of its executive authority. Amendment should have been made in the Schedule of powers in the manner in which Ex.R5 has been issued. As already stated that P & T Manual is not statutory in character, so the Manual can even be amended and modified by issuance of the letters by the Government in the exercise of its executive authority. It would have been proper and better that the Schedule of powers as contained in the Manual should have been amended in an appropriate manner. But on that account, Ex. R/4 does not lose its efficacy and it will have to be held that the powers have been properly delegated. I may mention here that Ex R/4 is issued for delegation of the powers and it has not been issued, whereby, the powers have been substituted. For delegation of the powers, it was even not necessary to bring about amendment in the Manual. 15. Mr. Singhvi has made reference to a decision of this Court in Jagdish Singh v. Union of India and others (1975 W.L.N. 843) , in which it was held that the orders Ex. R/1, R/2 and R/4, which were issued by the Railway Board, do not amend the Manual. It may be stated that in that case, a distinction was drawn bet ten Statutory Rules and Administrative orders. The above orders were treated to be Administrative decisions and the question was considered as to whether the letters are the rules within the meaning of rule 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. 1, or merely a decision of the Railway Board on certain matters. It may also be pointed out that the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. 1 was made by the President of India in Exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Article 309 of the Constitution and rule 157 conferred full powers to make rules of general application to non-gazetted Railway Servants and the Railway Board in exercise of that power made number of rules, which are available in the form of a compilation entitled I.R.E. Manual. Thus, the Indian Railway Establishment Code had the statutory force, which is not so in the case of P & T Manual. Thus, this authority is not of any help to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. Another limb of argument of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in relation to Ex. R/4 is, that Ex. Thus, the Indian Railway Establishment Code had the statutory force, which is not so in the case of P & T Manual. Thus, this authority is not of any help to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. Another limb of argument of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in relation to Ex. R/4 is, that Ex. R/4 only relates to the review of the powers delegated to the officers of the Directorate in regard to the posting and transfer vide S. No.4 of the statement attached to Memo No. 57/70 SPT dated May 27, 1970. This contention of Mr. Singhvi has no substance. By Ex. R/3 dated May 27, 1970 referred to in Ex. R/4, the administrative powers were delegated as contained in the attached statement at S.N.4. Delegation of powers regarding the posting and transfer are mentioned in column No.3 of the statement. The present level of disposal in case of Class I, Senior Time Scale for posting and transfer was vested in Secretary and the proposed level of disposal as given in column No. 4 was DDG. It is this power, which has been reviewed and power has been delegated to the Member concerned under Ex.R 4. Prior to May 27. 1970 such powers were vested in the Secretary, who is also the Director General and Chairman of the P&T Board. The power, which vested in the DDG by Ex R/3 was vested in the Member concerned under Ex.R/4. 17. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the contention of Mr. Singhvi that the order Ex. 3 does not emante from the competent authority and on that count, has no validity. 18. Having found that the order Ex 3 has emanated from the competent authority, it is not necessary to dwell on the arguments relating to the exercise of the power by the PMG under the pressure of the Union and on extraneous considerations or by abusing or misusing of the power by exercising the power arbitrarily or with malafides, as no attack is inside against the Member (PO). In this connection, I may refer to a Division Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Faruq Ameen v. State of Punjab & others (1979 (3) S.L.R. 219) . In this connection, I may refer to a Division Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Faruq Ameen v. State of Punjab & others (1979 (3) S.L.R. 219) . In that case, the allegations of mala fides were made against the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 10) and Anwar Ahmed Khan, MLA (respondent No. 11) and not against the appointing authority viz. Punjab Government. It was observed that, "that being so, there appears to be no justification for holding that the appointments of the Chairman and Trustees in question by the Government were illegal to be quashed on that ground. The Government is to believed to have acted in making the: aforesaid appointments in the absence of any allegations of male fide against it." 19. A similar' question arose in a decision rendered by me in Ghisulal v. The Union of India (1981 R.L.W. 659) . In that case, the allegations of mala fides were made against the Wing Commander Shri M. Nair and there was no material on the basis of which, it could be said that the Wing Commander had anything to do with the order of transfer. It was taken to be a bald allegation that Mr. Nair could manoeuver to get the transfer of the petitioner effected. In that case, there was a clear plea of thy: respondent that the lower formation is not consulted for the purpose of transfer and the transfer order emanated from AFRD. 20. However, as elaborate arguments were advanced attacking the order of transfer as if its, author is PMG, I consider it proper and desirable to deal with those arguments. 21. It is argued by Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner order of transfer was issued under the pressure of the Union Leaders and extraneous considerations were taken into account, whereby, the PMG abused and misused his powers and he exercised his powers in an arbitrary manner. It may be stated that no allegation of bias, prejudice and malice in fact, has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition and Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar, frankly and candidly conceded that there is no malus animus of Shri B. T. Manghani against the petitioner. It may be stated that no allegation of bias, prejudice and malice in fact, has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition and Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar, frankly and candidly conceded that there is no malus animus of Shri B. T. Manghani against the petitioner. What is to be seen is as to whether the order of transfer is liable to be quashed even in the absence of any accusation of personal malice, bias or prejudice. Before dealing with the facts of the case, I may first refer to some cases, on which reliance has been placed by Shri Singhvi. 22. In Dinesh Chandra Sharma v. Union of India and others (1982 Lab.I.C. 962) , the petitioner was an Auditor in the Office of the Controller of the Defence Accounts, Central Command, Meerut and he was transferred to Babina. The petitioner alleged that the cider of transfer was passed because he objected to the direction requiring hint to attend the office .Out of the normal working hours and on which account respondent No. 6 became annoyed with him. The petitioner has also made representations in this regard. On the facts of that case, it was observed that the proximity between the protest made by the petitioner against being required to attend the office beyond the normal working hours and the order of transfer, with the intervening representations, does lend credence to the petitioner's case that the order of transfer was not made in the normal course. The assertion of the facts that the petitioner was transferred in the interest of service on administrative grounds, was not substantiated, as the respondents did not bring before the court any material to justify the claim that the order of transfer was made in the interest of service on administrative grounds. In paras 12 and 14, it was observed as under:- "The aforesaid circumstances indicate that the transfer of the petitioner to Babina, closely following the petitioner's protest against being required to attend office beyond the normal working hours, was not made in the normal course in the interest of service as alleged but had been directed for some other reason. In paras 12 and 14, it was observed as under:- "The aforesaid circumstances indicate that the transfer of the petitioner to Babina, closely following the petitioner's protest against being required to attend office beyond the normal working hours, was not made in the normal course in the interest of service as alleged but had been directed for some other reason. The power of' transfer of the petitioner outside Meerut, which the respondents undoubtedly had, could only be exercised by them in the interest of service and not for any collateral reason as seems to have been done in the instant case. "The grievance of the petitioner that the order of transfer dated Jan. 11, 1977 had been passed as a measure of punishment against him need not be done into for, as held earlier, the Order, though not mala fide in fact was passed not in the normal course in the interest of' service but for some extraneous considerations. 'That would be enough to hold that it was not a valid order, more so, when no justification was disclosed for the departure in the matter of transfer, in the case of' the petitioner, from the normal practice of transferring out those who had a longer duration of stay at a particular station." In A.K. Vasudeva v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1982 Lab.I.C.NOC: 20) . Vyas Dev Misra, C.T., struck down the transfer order as the transfer of the Principal of Government High School was made in the interest of a political person, an MLA in order to nurse his constituency and not on grounds of administrative reasons and public interest as the note speaks. In Dr. P. Damodaran v. State of Kerala and others (1982 Lab. I.C. 251) , case law on the subject has been reviewed and it has been observed that when a court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of' power and its jurisdiction is invoked the court can certainly step in. In Dr. P. Damodaran v. State of Kerala and others (1982 Lab. I.C. 251) , case law on the subject has been reviewed and it has been observed that when a court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of' power and its jurisdiction is invoked the court can certainly step in. The following dictum of Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overtoun (19()4 A.C. 515) was quoted by the Supreme Court in Pratapsingh v. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1964 S. C. 72) :- "I take it to be clear that there is a condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers namely, that the power shall be used bona fide for the purpose for which they are conferred." Ayyangar, J., further proceeded to state:- "Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of had faith, an abuse or a misuse by Government of its powers. While the indirect motive or purpose, or bad faith or personal ill-will 's not be held established except on clear proof thereof. it is obviously, difficult to establish the state of a man's mind, for that is what the appellant has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. (See Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1884 29 Ch. D. 459) . The difficulty is not lessened when one has to establish that a person in the position of a minister apparently acting in the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting male fide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. We must, however, demur to the suggestion that, malafide in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence that is, that it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the notings in the file which preceded the order. If had faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts". It was further observed in that case as under:- "The power to transfer should be exercised reasonably and fairly and in the best interest of the administration. If had faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts". It was further observed in that case as under:- "The power to transfer should be exercised reasonably and fairly and in the best interest of the administration. Micro: the power is exercised without due regard to the interest of the administration or the interest of the public or the provisions of law or he requirements of justice, or where the power is exercised for extraneous and irrelevant considerations, or for mala fide reasons, or as a punishment or as an act of victimisation in all those cases of perverse exercise or abuse of power, the jurisdiction of High Court is wide enough to strike down the offending order. That the power was exercised without personal animosity or malice would in such cases be no answer. Bad faith does not necessarily mean dishonesty. Mala fide in the legal sense is a fraud on power. But not necessarily a dishonest or malicious act. A person acts mala fide if he exercises the perversely power or unauthorisedly or improperly or unreasonably." Reference was also made by Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner to the decision of the Calcutta high Court in State of West Bengal and others v. Chira Ranjan Shit (1931 (2) S.L.R. 810) . In that case, it was found that the petitioner was transferred after 14 months before three years tenure at the behest of the leaders. The order of transfer was quashed as it was not a transfer in routine and not a bona fide exercise of the power, but it was a colourable exercise of the power. But this decision was reversed in appeal by Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court- in State of West Bengal v. Chira Ranjan Shit (1932 (1) S.L.R. 402) . The Division Bench, on facts found that the allegation of the respondent that the local leaders of the CPI (M) had put pressure upon the Commissioner of Police, had acted under the dictates have not been established by any evidence or any material on record and further on facts, it was found that the respondent has failed to establish mala fides on the part of the Commissioner of Police in passing the, impugned order of transfer. 23. Mr. 23. Mr. Singhvi, also referred to a decision of this Court in Thanaram v. State of Rajasthan (1973 R.L.W. 621) . In that case, the question related to the misuse of the power of suspension of Pradhan, who was elected. On facts, it was found that the order of suspension was passed in hot haste and there was nothing on record that the petitioner had used his office for his personal or political ends. His Lordship Tyagi, J., (as he then was) in Para 24, observed as under:- "We cannot forget that in a State wedded to democracy "rule of law" acts as a constant deterrent for temptation against the misuse of power conferred by the Legislature on the Government which functions as a trustee to safeguard the rights an I the interests of the people. The "rule of law" always operates through the instrumentality of the court and ensures that the persons in power do not, while executing the approval policies of the legislature, act arbitrarily injuring the individual in life, liberty, property or reputation. The expression "rule of law" primarily implies that the life., liberty, property and reputation of the people shall not be damaged or impaired except under the authority of the law, that is to say, for a purpose stated in the law and the manner so stated. Rule of law is not a mere mechanical rule just requiring compliance with Statute. It is much more. It is a principle. Thus if the law laid down by the Parliament itself authorises that the Government or any official thereof may act in a manner stated therein, then he has not only to follow the procedure laid down in the statute but has to follow the purpose for which such a law has been enacted by the legislature. It is in this sense that modern writers have said that an act may be perfectly legal and yet it may be contrary to rule of law and the principle. This phrase has been derived from the Latin expression La Legalite which connotes Government on principles of law, not man. The implication of this is that society is really ruled or governed by law, enabling the common man to forcese the actions of the administration. This phrase has been derived from the Latin expression La Legalite which connotes Government on principles of law, not man. The implication of this is that society is really ruled or governed by law, enabling the common man to forcese the actions of the administration. There is no doubt that the administration always exercise some degree of discretion, but the area of discretion left with the administrator should be delimited by certain power is thus, foreign to the conception of "the rule of law". It conceives justice as a supreme human good and for any unjustified infringement of liberty of man the liability of a Minister of State in no whit different from that of another inferior authority". 24. The contention of the State was negatived that the impugned order passed by the Minister was within the ambit of the authority given to the Government by the statute. In that connection, it was observed that if the court comes to the conclusion that the motive for passing the impugned order was wholly extraneous, the Court should not feel helpless to redress the wrong done to the person injured by such an order, otherwise, if the Court refuses on technical grounds to extend protection to the aggrieved person, then the whole concept of the rule of law will be rendered nugatory. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Paratapsingh v. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 72) , where the Supreme Court held that if the act of an authority is in excess of the power granted or is an abuse or misuse of power the matter is capable of interference and rectification by the Court. The Supreme Court further observed that in such an event the fact that the authority concerned denies the charge of of malafides or asserts the absence of oblique motive or of its having taken into consideration irrelevant or improper matter, it cannot deter the court from enquiring into the truth of the allegation made against the authority and affording appropriate relief to the party aggrieved by such a power. In S. Pratapsingh's case supra, certain order of the Government, inter alia, were challenged on the ground of mala fide or at the instance of the Chief Minister, State of Punjab, who was said to have personal basis. In S. Pratapsingh's case supra, certain order of the Government, inter alia, were challenged on the ground of mala fide or at the instance of the Chief Minister, State of Punjab, who was said to have personal basis. On the facts of that case, it was observed that "the dominant motive, which induced the Government to take disciplinary proceedings against him for misconduct, which it bona fide believed he had committed, but to wreak vengence on him for incruring his wrath and for the discredit that he had brought on the Chief Minister by the allegations that he had made in the article which appeared in the Blitz in its issues dated January 15, 1961 followed by the communication to the same newspaper by the appellant's , wife, in which this allegations were affirmed and which in large part we have found to be true. We therefore hold that the impugned orders were vitiated by mala fides, in that they were motivated by an improper purpose which was outside that for which the power or discretion was conferred on Government and the said orders therefore be set aside". From the case law, as considered above, it appears to be well setteled that even the administrative order of any authority is open to challenge and can be set at naught and quashed, if it is passed with mala fides or is contrary to the purpose for which, the power is conferred or passed on extraneous considerations, arbitrarily, by abuse or misuse of the power. 25. It is to be seen in the instant case, as to whether, the transfer order in question suffers from such a vice. 26. There were two major events during the petitioner's tenure at jodhpur. The first major event is that lightening strike of the employees on May 12, 1981 and the second major event is the 'Dharna' by the employees out side the Head Post Office form 3rd May, 1982 to 14th May, 1982. As a result of lightening strike on May 12, 1981 some disciplinary actions were taken by the petitioner and some of the employees were warned and others were treated ''Dies non' i.e. non-payment of salary of that day, and still for some others, their absence was treated as break in service and consequently, loss of other benefits. Action for break in service was under-taken under the Fundamental Rule 17A. Action for break in service was under-taken under the Fundamental Rule 17A. Shri S.S. Trived was one of the employees falling under this category, who was the Divisional Secretary of the Union. Further transfer orders were issued in respect of the three employees, Shri M.M. Vajpayee, R.R. Soei and Ashok Kumar. Besides that one Shri S.D. Paliwal was ordered to go for re-test before the Telegraph Department, Jodhpur, but he avoided his re-test. According to the petitioner's case, the transfer orders were acid iii abeyance by the PMG telegraphically vide Ex. 8 dated May 14, 1982, and telegraphically, Shri S D. Paliwal was also permitted to join any non-combined post at Jaisalmer till his re-examination case is decided vide telegram dated May 14, 1982, when Dharna was going on. Mr. Singhvi submitted that the petitioner is a strict disciplinarian and he is allergic to indiscipline. In his normal duties, when the petitioner visited the Head Post Office, jodhpur on May 12,1981, at the beginning of the office hours, he found some counter clerks and APM absent, so he marked them with Cross (X) in the attendance register. Although, there was some dialogue but nothing untrue and event happened in the presence of the petitioner and in his absence the staff went on strike, fill the petitioner left the Head Post Office, there was nothing unusual, which can be said to be the cause for the staff to go on lightening strike. 27. Regarding the incident of May 12, 1981 there were vayying and conflicting reports. There is a report dated May 13, 1981 of the Post Master Gazetted. According to him during the procass of checking the attendance register, the petitioner had discussion with some of the Members of Clerical staff including Shri S.S. Trivedi, Divisional Secretary AIPEU Class III and after leaving of the office by the petitioner, the staff member started applying for Casual Leave. On telephone, the petitioner advised to refuse C.L. and when the casual leave was refused, the whole staff of the office including the post-men (delivery staff) stopped the work. When he requested them to carry on his work smoothly, they said that SSPO has iris-behaved the elected representative of the Union, so he should regret for the same. He tried to contact the petitioner, but when he could not contact, he informed the Director Postal Services on phone. Thereupon. When he requested them to carry on his work smoothly, they said that SSPO has iris-behaved the elected representative of the Union, so he should regret for the same. He tried to contact the petitioner, but when he could not contact, he informed the Director Postal Services on phone. Thereupon. DPS with ADI'S and ASP came to the office and on contacting the petitioner, the petitioner visited the Head Post Office and after he had a talk with the staff and the representatives, the work was resumed. 28. The Director postal services, at that time was Shri S. K. Sen He also reported the matter to the PMG on May 14, 1981. According to him, when the petitioner was checking the attendance register, Shri S.S. Trivedi cause and objected that some people were already present and, therefore, he should not mark them absent. It was at about 10. 05 hrs, Shri Trivedi was also marked absent as lie had not signed in the register and during the exchange of words between the petitioner and the Divisional Secretary. Shri S. S. Trivedi, said that he was on casual leave. Thereupon, the petitioner told him "if you are on C.L. then you may go out from the post Office". On this, the Divisional Secretary and the staff felt agitated and this ultimately resulted in strike. The DPS tried to persuade the staff but the staff was quite adament and demanded express regrets from the SSPO. Ultimately, he promised to arrange a meeting with SSP, When the SSP arrived at the Head Post Office, he met the strikers and handled the situation. The work was resumed at 13.30 hrs. Mr. Sen in his report, expressed that the matter was too insignificant to cause the lightening strike of such a magnitude. According to the staff. it was culmination of the whole series of insults. He also apportioned the blame on the Post Master. 29. The PMG also submitted his report dated June 2, 1981 to the Director General (SR), New Delhi, in which, he expressed that in any case, the SSPO and Post Master, Jodhpur are not free from blame and failed to handle the situation tactfully. 30. Shri H.R. Laskari, Post Master Gazetted submitted another report on June 11, 1981 regarding the lightening strike. 31. An enquiry was conducted by Shri M. S.Jayee, ADPS, who submitted his enquiry report dated March 15, 1982. 30. Shri H.R. Laskari, Post Master Gazetted submitted another report on June 11, 1981 regarding the lightening strike. 31. An enquiry was conducted by Shri M. S.Jayee, ADPS, who submitted his enquiry report dated March 15, 1982. In his report, he expressed that the Divisional Secretary has an ulterior motive to denigrate and malign the administration with his power syndrome as Divisional Secretary and he succeeded in getting the services paralysed. He held that there was no unusual happening, which should It me incited the numbers of the staff to resort to the lightening strike of such a magnitude. In his report, he paid tributes to the pensioner and stated that the petitioner advised Shri Trivedi not to argue and go out from the office, as he was on C. L. This does not tantamount of mis-behaviour. The enquiry officer found as under:- "The petitioner was wedded to anauring discipline and punctuality in the office and his action as such cannot be taken as an act of misbehaviour, which the said Secretary under the influence of his age and power syndrome canalised into fomenting resentment." It may be pointed out that as to what words were used by the petitioner while addressing the Secretary, the record reveals divergent versions whether the Divisional Secretary was asked to get out' or to go away' or 'to go out of the office' or -please go out of the office' and in what manner and in what tone, the words were uttered and whether the uttering of words were such, whereby insult may be felt or not, is all a matter of enquiry and this Court is not called upon to record any finding thereon. 32. The petitioner's action regarding enforcing punctuality and discipline appears to have been appreciated by the Member (PO) as is evident from his letter dated July 31, 1981. He expressed that recently a case came to his notice, where a Divisional Superintendent of Post Offices paid a surprise visit and observed that the staff turned up for duty a few minutes beyond the prescribed time for opening of the counters. When he objected to this, the staff protested and acted in a concerted manner, staving away from their work for a few hours and thereby inconveniencing the public besides exhibiting gross indiscipline. The Divisional Superintendent was blamed as tactless. When he objected to this, the staff protested and acted in a concerted manner, staving away from their work for a few hours and thereby inconveniencing the public besides exhibiting gross indiscipline. The Divisional Superintendent was blamed as tactless. The Member expressed that the situation of this type should be tackled not merely tactfully but with firmness. It would not be correct to find fault with the Divisional Superintendent for having insisted on punctuality and for having objected to the unpunctual attendance of the staff. On the other hand, inspecting officer, who insists on maintenance of discipline by the staff, should be given full support. This is how the Member (PO) felt upon the situation and expressed his view. But it appears that the Postal Class III Union made a complaint against the petitioner and the Member (PO) asked the PMG by his letter dated December 28, 1981 to look into the matter and he was required to intimate whether the petitioner is due for rotational transfer. It is, with reference to this D. O. letter dated December 28, 1981 that the PMG addressed the D. O. letter dated January 27, 1982 to the Member (PO) in which he expressed that at Jodhpur personally, he felt, that the handling of the staff by the petitioner, was not fair and tactful. It is, on this letter of the PMG that approval was given by the Member (PO) particularly on the basis of the portion marked 'Z". The same Member, who appreciated the action of insisting on punctual attendance and discipline and who expressed to deal such a situation with firmness instead of dealing with tactfully, gave his approval for the petitioner's transfer taking into account, the PMG's opinion that the petitioner was not fair to the staff and was not tactful. 33. The petitioner's transfer further came in the wake of Dharna staged by the staff of the Head Post Office. The petitioner took the action under the Fundamental Rule 17A against Shri S.S. Trivedi on April 29, 1982 and treated his absence as break in service and consequently. debarred him in appearing in the examination, which was going to be held on May 2. 1982. The memo was served on Shri Trivedi in the examination hall and lie was not allowed to take up the examination as reported by the Divisional Engineer (Telegraphs). Although. debarred him in appearing in the examination, which was going to be held on May 2. 1982. The memo was served on Shri Trivedi in the examination hall and lie was not allowed to take up the examination as reported by the Divisional Engineer (Telegraphs). Although. the PMG permitted him to appear in the examination. The petitioner deputed Shri R.K. Ahujha, Accounts officer in the office of D.E. (P) Jodhpur. He came in the examination hall and told the Divisional Engineer (Telegraphs) that the petitioner has told him on telephone that Shri Trivedi should not be allowed to appear in the examination. The Divisional Engineer (T) then asked Shri Trivedi at about 10.05 hrs- not to appear in the examination. Shri Trivedi wanted that it may be given in writing. Thereupon, he gave him in writing and then, Shri Trivedi submitted the answer book and papers at about 10.50 hrs., as would appear from the report of the DET' dated May 23, 1982. This incident further appears to have accelerated the existing resentment in the staff, which ultimately culminated in staging of Dharna. 34. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Union Leaders were proclaiming that the PMG has assured the petitioner's transfer and that other adverse orders would be cancelled, as would be evident from the report of Shri Jagdish Arora, ASPO, dated May 15, 1982 and in fact, the transfer orders of three employees were cancelled by the PMG and the order for Shri Paliwal was also issued allowing him to continue to remain at Jaisalmer and cases under the Fundamental Rules 17A were also ultimately decided in favour of the staff. The petitioner was asked to do as aforesaid in his meeting with the PMG also he was threatened for his transfer. This only shows that the petitioner has been transferred under the pressure and dictates of the Union Leaders and not in the interest of service and administration or under any administrative exigency. These were extraneous considerations, so the power of transfer has been exercised not for the purpose, for which it is conferred. I am unable to agree with this submission of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The PMG is his affidavit denied the alleged threat if action is not taken as is said to have been asked by him and there is no reason to disbelieve him. I am unable to agree with this submission of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. The PMG is his affidavit denied the alleged threat if action is not taken as is said to have been asked by him and there is no reason to disbelieve him. It appears to me that the PMG could have legitimately formed an opinion that if the situation on 12.5.1982 would have been handled tactfully, the staff would not have proceeded on the lightening strike. He had expressed such an opinion in his report of June 1981 and reiterated the same in his letters dated January 27, 1982 and it is this opinion of the PMG, which carried weight with the Member (PO). Non- handling of the situation tactfully gave rise to strained relations and consequent disciplinary action, which further accelerated the tense feelings of the staff. It is not for this Court to judge as to how the good administration can be run. Whether good administration can he run only by imposing discipline with firmness or good administration can be run with firmness, coupled with tactfulness. In any case, it cannot be said that the action of the PMG in proposing the petitioner's transfer was founded on bowing down to the wishes, dictates and demands of the Union Leaders. On the contrary, his correspondence reveals that the petitioner's transfer should be so timed that it may not be taken to be a transfer under the pressure of the Union. It can not be said that it was in fact, under the pressure of the Union, so it was deliberately designed to be ordered at an appropriate time. The PMG had formed an opinion and recommended for the petitioner's transfer outside the Circle as early as January 27, 1982 much before the staging of Dharna and holding in abeyance of transfer orders and continuance older of Shri S. D. Paliwal at Jaisalmer. Thus, the aforesaid ground of attack in respect of the petitioner's transfer order is without any basis and substance. 35. It may be relevant and useful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (A.I.R. 1974 S. C 555) . In that case, the petitioner was the Chief Secretary in the State of Tamil Nadu, who challenged his transfer. 35. It may be relevant and useful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (A.I.R. 1974 S. C 555) . In that case, the petitioner was the Chief Secretary in the State of Tamil Nadu, who challenged his transfer. While dealing with the question of' burden of establishing malafides in para 92, their Lordships observed as under:- "We must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility". Their Lordships of Supreme Court further observed as under as to how the acts of the Administrators are to be viewed by the Courts:- "In this context it may be noted that top administrators are often required to do acts which affect others adversely but which are necessary in the execution of their duties. These acts may lend themselves to misconstruction and suspicion as to the bona fides of their author when the full facts and surrounding circumstances are not known. The Court would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inference from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly, when the imputations are grave and they are trade against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charges of unworthy conduct against Ministers and other high authorities, not because of any special status which they are supposed to enjoy, nor because they are highly placed in social life or administrative set up these considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial approach but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy. It is from this stand-point that we trust assess the merits of the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against the second respondent ". 36. It is from this stand-point that we trust assess the merits of the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against the second respondent ". 36. There were certain disputed questions between the parties and in that connection, their Lordships stated that, that is a matter of controversy between the parties and it does not fall within the province of the court to investigate, and the question of mala Poles was concluded by their Lordships with the observation that "we cannot say that the evidence generating judicial certitude in upholding the plea of mala fides has been placed before us in the present case. We must, therefore, reject this contention of the petitioner as well". 37. It may be mentioned, as already stated above that it is not within the domain of this Court to investigate as to what actually transferred on May 12, 1981 and apportion the blame in respect of that event. But the PMG certainly felt that the situation was not handled tactfully by the petitioner and he also formed an opinion that his relations with the staff are trained and not good. It appears that it is this view, which prompted the PMG to recommend the petitioner's transfer in his own interest and in the interest of the administration. Another Administration in place of the PMG might have felt differently and might have dealt with the situation strictly and more firmly, disregarding the voice of the Union or the Staff. It is not for the court to advise or substitute the decision of the PMG by saying that the PMG should have acted differently by ignoring the voice of the staff or by dealing with the situation with strong hands. But of the two courses, the PMG acted in the manner in which, he thought it fit to act and on that basis, the action of the FMG in proposing the petitioner's transfer and issuing the order Ex. 3, in my opinion, calls for no interference. He was the best judge of the situation and after assessing the situation in his own way, action was Proposed by him. Such an action on the part of the PMG, hardly can be considered fit for the Court to step in or to intervene. 38. Mr. D. S. Shishodia also made reference to the conduct of the petitioner at Udaipur, which has been strongly defended by the petitioner. Such an action on the part of the PMG, hardly can be considered fit for the Court to step in or to intervene. 38. Mr. D. S. Shishodia also made reference to the conduct of the petitioner at Udaipur, which has been strongly defended by the petitioner. In my opinion, it is not of much relevance and is not necessary to be dealt with. 39. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that under the tenure policy Ex. 6 dated November 12, 1981, the petitioner should have been allowed to stay for a period of 4 years. The Station tenure under Ex.6 is for 4 years, which may be extended for 6 years in the individual case in the interest of public. The order Ex.3 is violative of the tenure policy and so it should be struck down on that score. It may be pointed out that in Ghisu Lal's case supra, I had an occasion to consider the question as to whether the tenure policy is justiciable. That was a case of an Airman. The tenure policy as such had no statutory force .In that case it was only considered as laying down the guide-lines for transfer and posting. It was observed that such instructions and policies do n t confer it right on the Airmen and they cannot claim as a matter of right for its enforcement. In that case, it was observed as under: "Here, I am first examining as to whether the Policy as such is justiciable and whether it confers a legal right to enforce it, in the event of its breach. My answer to the question is in the negative. The tenure policy is meant for the officers empowered to effect transfer. A guide-line is provided in it for the competent authorities, to effect transfers. Such instructions and policies do not confer a right on the Airman and they can not claim as a matter of right for its enforcement. If, any competent authority in disregard of the Government instructions issued transfer orders, then the remedy is to approach the higher authority and make a representation in that behalf. But he will have no enforceable right and can not seek quashing of the transfer orders. If, any competent authority in disregard of the Government instructions issued transfer orders, then the remedy is to approach the higher authority and make a representation in that behalf. But he will have no enforceable right and can not seek quashing of the transfer orders. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in V.B. Laxmeshwar's case supra and the Orissa High Court in Jogendra Mohanty's case supra. I, therefore, hold that the tenure policy in the present case as stated in Annexures R/1,R/2 and R/3 is not justiciable and enforceable at law as it does not confer any legal right on the petitioner". 40. Independent of the question of justiciability, this question was gone into as to whether the transfer was in exigency of service. In Clause 16 of Ex. 6, it is provided that the transfer in the interest of service may be ordered by the competent authority, even though, they do not fall within the purview of the guide-line. In the present case, I have already found that the transfer of the petitioner was ordered in the interest of administration and service. So, firstly, the transfer policy is not justiciable and secondly, the transfer order is within the frame- work of the policy as it was in the interest of service. 41. No other point survives for consideration nor any other point has been argued before me. 42. In the result, this writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. *******