JUDGMENT S. B. Sanyal, J.- This is a defendants' second appeal against a judgment of reversal. 2. The question of law framed at the time of admission of the present appeal is : "When the Court of appeal below erred in holding that the transfer of the plaintiffs-respondents was malafide, motivated and without any valid reason." Facts 3. According to the plaintiff's case he was appointed as Datary on temporary basis on 21.11.1973 in the Tube-Well Circle, Begusarai. Sometime in the year 1977, he was assigned, in addition to his own duties, the work of despatch section and maintenance of stamps. He was allowed some officiating allowance for this. This was admissible to him from 15.7.1978. Thereafter, inspite of the plaintiff's unblemished record of work in service, it is said, that in utter abuse of his power, acting malafide the appellant No. 1 transferred the plaintiff from Tube-well circle, Begusarai, to Tube-well Division, Begusarai, to the post of Daftari and thus he was made to lose the officiating allowance admissible to him while he was posted in Tube-well Circle. This order of transfer of the plaintiff was made sometime in the year 1981 and one Shiv Prasad Rajak was brought to the place of posting of the plaintiff. It is said that the transfer of the plaintiff is against the Government Circular as also mala fide and motivated. 4. The trial Court held that the transfer order of the plaintiff was a routine matter and merely because the plaintiff will be deprived of his officiating allowance for working in despatch section and maintenance of stamps will not amount to his demotion and reversion, nor does it affect his right of promotion. It was also held that the plaintiff having stayed for about seven years at the Tube-Well Circle, Begusarai, the defendants were within their power to transfer him to the Tube-Well Division, Begusarai, which became operative on joining of Mr. Shiva Pd. Rajak in the Tube-Well Circle, Begusarai. In any view of the matter, as the order of transfer of the plaintiff has been passed in administrative capacity, it cannot be challenged and it is not justiciable. 5. Shiva Pd. Rajak in the Tube-Well Circle, Begusarai. In any view of the matter, as the order of transfer of the plaintiff has been passed in administrative capacity, it cannot be challenged and it is not justiciable. 5. On appeal, the lower appellate Court held that the grant of officiating allowance of 20 percent to the plaintiff for rendering additional duty of doing the work of despatch section and maintenance of stamps is a right and, therefore, the Court below was wholly wrong in holding that the plaintiff was never promoted to the post of despatcher. It is also held that the plaintiff having officiated for three years to the said post, under the Bihar Service Code, he became automatically entitled to the post of despatcher, he having earned a lien to the said post. Therefore, when the question of filling up the vacancy of despatcher arose, the plaintiff stood a fair chance for promotion. The Court of appeal below further held that the plaintiff being Class IV employee, his transfer from one place to another is violative of Government circular dated 15.11.1977 contained in Ext. 3/E. Having recorded these findings, it concluded that the transfer of the plaintiff is malafide, motivated and without any valid reason and, therefore, the transfer should be struck down. It passed a decree to the effect that the transfer being malafide and motivated, the plaintiff should be allowed to 'join the Tube-Well Circle, Begusarai, on substantive post of Daftari and he should be entitled to his usual remuneration. 6. Having gone through the two judgments of the Courts below, I find that there is no discussion of any evidence whatsoever by the lower appellate Court on the question of malafide and motivation alleged. There does not appear to be any evidence of bias nor there is any discussion about it while striking down the order of transfer of plaintiff as being malafide and motivated. The only reasons assigned by the lower appellate Court for arriving at the said finding are (a) by the impugned transfer, the plaintiff will be losing some officiating allowance for his rendering work of despatch and maintenance of stamps, and (b) the order of transfer is violative of the Government Circular dated 15.11.1977 contained in Ext. 3/E, which provides that class IV employee should not be transferred from one place to another. 3/E, which provides that class IV employee should not be transferred from one place to another. I must make it clear to the lower appellate Court that merely because the order of transfer of the plaintiff is illegal, will not amount to the action of the defendants being promoted by malafide or any other motive. The allegation of malafide is easy to make, but difficult to prove. There must be pleading of mala fide and there must be instances therefore, showing bias, and it has to be proved to the hilt before recording such a finding. Further, the suit being for mandatory injunction, the Court of appeal below ought to have borne in mind the provisions of Specific Relief Act which prohibits the grant of injunction where the contract is a determinable one. In the instant case, the plaintiff was working on an officiating basis and getting officiating allowance as a despatcher. The very fact that he was officiating to the post of despatcher conferred no right to the post and such officiation was of determinable one. In face of that, the grant of injunction in the mandatory form is wholly illegal. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is wholly unsatisfactory. On the contrary, the judgment of the trial Court appears to be just and fair and entirely in accordance with law. I, therefore, restore the judgment and decree of the trial Court and set aside the decree granted by the lower appellate Court. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court are restored. There will, however, be no order as to costs.