JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba, J. - This bunch of 29 writ petitions relate to transfer matter of Junior Engineers of U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter shall be referred to as Board). It appears that orders for transfer of Junior Engineers were passed by the Board mainly on two dates 25-3-1987 and 29-4-1987. More than one transfer orders affecting several officers were passed on 25-3-1987 and likewise several orders of transfer covering a large number of officers were passed on 29-4-1987. The order as concerns a particular petitioner has been challenged and is sought to be quashed. In some of the writ petitions transfer orders cancelling the transfer orders of some of the officers have also been challenged. Orders of the Board issued in the form of circular letters or office memorandum whereby, policy guidelines were laid down for making transfers of Junior Engineers have also been subjected to challenge. Copies of the two such orders have been filed in the writ petitions, being, dated 23-12-1986 issued by the Secretary of the Board to Chief Engineer, Hydel. The subject has been described to be shortage of Junior Engineers at Obra/Anpara Thermal Projects. It indicates that the issue of shortage of Junior Engineers at the said projects and the measures to be taken to Comments out this exigency were discussed on 9-12-1986 and after due consideration the decisions were taken as set out in this order. The basis to meet the situation and to make transfers of the Junior Engineers as laid down broadly are like this : (1) Junior Engineers presently posted in Distribution/Transmission discipline below 40 years in age on 1-1-1986 be immediately shifted to these projects excluding, however, those who had already come from these Projects to Distribution/Transmission organisation and had not completed four years up to 1-1-1986. (2) Such Junior Engineers shall be imparted extensive job-training of three months in the first instant. (2) Such Junior Engineers shall be imparted extensive job-training of three months in the first instant. (3) To void hardship on account of mid-term dislocation under lying the transfers, certain facilities will be provided during training period ; they could obtain Boards residence up to April, 1987, shall continue to be attached to their units from where they were transferred up to end of April, 1987 and shall be entitled to daily allowance as per usual rates for the stay at Obra/Anpara Projects and shall be permitted to visit their existing place of residence once a month upto April, 1987 for a maximum period of four days and they will get T.A. for such journeys. The second order May 11, 1987 is in the form of office memorandum issued under the signatures of Secretary of the Board laying down the following policy directive for guidance in continuation of circular, dated 23-12-1986. The Board guidelines being : (1) Junior Engineers belonging to batches starting from 1984 downwards under 41 years of age as on 1-1-1987 who has not been posted at any time in Thermal/Hydro/Generation Projects for a minimum period of three years shall be posted to Thermal/Hydro Projects to the extent needed. (2) The Chief Engineer Distribution will submit list of Junior Engineers to be posted out of the Zone/Project on administrative/compassionate grounds with detailed justifications. (3) Normally Junior Engineers posted in a distribution circle shall remain posted in the particular circle for a period of 8 years (two placements). Where after he will be shifted to another circle for stay up to four years. After 12 years stay in a Distribution Zone he shall be transferred to another Zone. (4) In case of Transmission Discipline, the minimum period of posting in a Transmission Circle shall be limited to 10 years where after he shell be shifted to another Circle to work there for five years. After 15 years he shall be shifted from the Zone. (5) In case of Generation Discipline, posting of Junior Engineers shall be made by the Project Manager on the basis of requirement and suit ability. (6) At any stage Junior Engineers can be moved from Transmission to Distribution and vice-versa or to Projects and from Projects to other units in the interest of work. (5) In case of Generation Discipline, posting of Junior Engineers shall be made by the Project Manager on the basis of requirement and suit ability. (6) At any stage Junior Engineers can be moved from Transmission to Distribution and vice-versa or to Projects and from Projects to other units in the interest of work. (7) Transfer may be affected at any time irrespective of the limit of the period of posting on administrative grounds or on account of organisational requirement or the suitability of the incumbent for the post. 2. The main ground of challenge to the policy guidelines is that age cannot be made the basis or classification for purpose of transfer as the same would be unreasonable and having no relationship with the object to be served. It is also pleaded that the policy guidelines were not strictly adhered to by the Board and amongst the same category what has been done is to pick and choose and as such the orders of transfer of the petitioners sutler from vice of arbitrariness. In some writ petitions it has been submitted that in the year 1986 about a thousand of Junior Engineers were transferred and most of these Junior Engineers disregarded and disobeyed the transfer order and under political pressure and extraneous considerations transfer orders of these Junior Engineers were cancelled. 3. We have heard the learned counsel who have appeared on behalf of the petitioners and Shri P.N. Mathur who has appeared for the Board. Upon perusal of the two orders laying down policy of transfer., dated December 23, 1986 and May 11, 1987 it appears that the basis or guidelines set out in the impugned order for transfer is not confined to the criteria of age. It provides something more also. The order, dated December 23, 1986 was issued to meet a particular situation, namely, to meet the shortage of Junior Engineers at Obra/Anpara Thermal project. No doubt those below 40 years of age on January 1, 1986 were required to be subjected to transfer but even amongst them who had already served at these projects and had not completed 40 years in the Distribution Transmission Discipline were to be excluded. This means the policy was two fold, firstly, that those who had never worked at the projects should be sent to such projects and secondly, that they may be of age below 40 years. This means the policy was two fold, firstly, that those who had never worked at the projects should be sent to such projects and secondly, that they may be of age below 40 years. There is obviously nothing wrong in transferring those Junior Engineers to projects who had not served at the projects earlier and were required to be given extensive training so as to effectively familiarise with the work of power generation projects. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board in W.P. No. 4022 of 1987 by Shri J.B. Saxena Executive Engineer-cum-P.A, to Chief Engineer, Hydel. It has been mentioned in this affidavit that there are seven important projects in the State where power is generated. The generation of power has been engaging the attention of the Board for quite sometime as transmission and distribution can work properly only when there is sufficient generation and since the work at the projects was comparatively more strenuous and the Junior Engineers have to physically climb up and down in the plant and to work in different shifts round the clock, many Junior Engineers were avoiding posting on the projects. It was mentioned that being younger people they were better able to bear strains of duties. It was also necessary to give them exposure to the techniques involved and it was expected that younger people would better learn and take advantage of the opportunity to improve their technical and forensic knowledge. That would improve the quality of work and when promoted these Junior Engineers would be conversant with the process involved in the generation work. The policy was said to have long term advantage because the younger people would be serving the Board for longer period their expertise knowledge on the generation side would help in the expansion programme on the generation side. (Emphasis supplied). Criteria of age has been justified on the reasons set out in the counter affidavit filed in W.P. No. 4022 of 1987 of the Board was that Junior Engineers of younger age -may be required to gain experience on the generation projects and their difficulty underlying the postings at the said projects may be lesser as compared to those in higher age group having responsibilities of bigger family and children taking education in higher classes. 4. 4. It has to be noticed that the petitioner of these writ petitions were posted at the Distribution Organisation and wanted to avoid their posting at generation projects at Obra/Anpara Thermal Project. One of the reasons to avoid posting at such projects may be that these projects are located outside the city/towns entailing practical difficulties relating to education of children etc. In any case, when asked learned counsel for the petitioners were unable to explain the reasons underlying the reluctance and avoidance of the posting at the project. Distribution means contact with the consumers which may be absent in a posting at a generation project. Preference to such contact may presumably be another reason. In any case, the only reason which could be given out by.the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the posting at generation projects entails practical difficulties like away from cities and towns having urban facilities If the guideline is considered in the context of this reason the criteria of age may not appear to be entirely irrelevant or unreasonable. The reasons for basis of shifting Junior Engineers in younger age group as given in the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No. 4022 of 1987 appear to be quite rational and reasonable because they may be more suitable and useful for this work and family responsibility of younger age group may be comparatively lesser as against those in higher age. In this view of the matter, the two basic criteria laid down in the order dated December 23, 1986 cannot be construed to be irrational and suffering from vice of constitutional discrimination. 5. Now about the office memorandum dated May 11, 1987, the two broad guidelines were the same as in the order dated December 13, 1 86, namely, that those Junior Engineers who had not worked for a minimum period of three years in a Thermal/Hydro General Projects, is to be shifted to such projects if like is below 41 years as on January 1, 1987. This order is more comprehensive providing that the Chief Engineer in the Distribution Organisation will make recoin irenditions for transfer keeping in view administrative/compassionate ground which they were required to record justification for making transfers in the interest of work and on administrative grounds or for organisational requirements and suitability irrespective of the limit of period of posting: Upon consideration, we find nothing wrong with the guidelines laid down in this order and for the reasons already mentioned the criteria of age also appears to us to be quite fair and reasonable. After all some criteria has to be had down even amongst those who had never been posted at any generation project. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that such criteria may be the length of stay in distribution/transmission organisation. No doubt, this basis would be more rational as compared to the criteria of age. However, criteria of length of stay may apply subject to the fact that a person with longer stay on the distribution side may not be considered suitable because of his age or his shifting to a project may be causing great hardship on account of family responsibility or health consideration etc. In this way, criteria of length of service on the distribution side with suitability on account of factors like age, health and other family factor may appear to be more rational criteria as compared to the criteria merely of age. 6. The grievance has been raised that orders of about thousands of Junior Engineers passed in the year 1986 were later cancelled for extraneous considerations and under political pressures. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that since such orders were subjected to challenge before this court and interim stay orders were granted that may Stave been the reason for cancelling good majority of such orders. He has denied that this was done under political pressure or on extraneous considerations. According to him this was done on reconsideration of the matter. In any case, if the transfer were cancelled for extraneous consideration or under political pressures that was unfortunate. Obviously, however, no presumption or inference can be drawn in this regard merely on the basis of indefinite allegations. 7. According to him this was done on reconsideration of the matter. In any case, if the transfer were cancelled for extraneous consideration or under political pressures that was unfortunate. Obviously, however, no presumption or inference can be drawn in this regard merely on the basis of indefinite allegations. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Board has made a categorical statement before us that the impugned orders of transfer of the petitioners have not been passed on the criterion of age and that after good deal of exercise the matter was re-examined and the transfer orders were passed on all relevant considerations and in the interest of work. In the impugned orders of transfer it has been expressly mentioned that the transfers and postings of Junior Engineers were ordered in the interest of work. Unless it is made out that the transfer orders were motivated and suffering from any legal infirmity there will be no case of interference by this court. 8. In W.P. No. 4174 of 1987, Amar Pal Singh v. U.P. State Electricity Board challenge to the transfer order of petitioner-Junior Engineer was based mainly on the ground that criteria of age for transfer was unreasonable, illegal irrational and totally unjustified. On that ground the transfer orders, dated April 29, 1987 and May 21, 1987 were sought to be challenged. This writ petition was dismissed on November 18, 1987 with the observation "that despite the stout argument made by Shri G.S.L. Verma, we are not satisfied that any ground exists for challenging the transfer order and we are also satisfied that the policy on which the the petitioner is being transferred is a reasonable one and as such, we reject the writ petition. We respectfully agree with this view. 9. The legal position as to the exercise of powers of interference in matters of transfer of Government employees or of employees of Government undertakings is clear and well laid. An order of transfer should not be interfered with except in those rare cases where it crosses hard lines which renders it vulnerable because of being unreasonable, unjust or unfair, (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, A.I.R. 1974 SC 555; B. Varadha Roo v. State of Karnataka and another, AIR 1986 SC 1955 and Umesh Chandra Tewari v. State of U.P., 1988 SLR (1) Alld 409). It was held that a transfer order would be illegal if it is not routine or is not made for administrative exigency or is not in public interest but has been passed with obligee motive. 10. In the instant cases before us none of the transfer order suffers from any legal infirmity. The petitioner in each of these cases had admittedly not served at a generation project at any time and if he is required to serve at such project and have the experience of the actual work on the generation side the transfer would obviously be in the public interest. It could not in any way be successfully shown that any of these orders was passed for reasons of mala fides attributable to any officer of the Board or for extraneous considerations. Companionate grounds may, no doubt, be existing in the cases of some of the petitioners but that does not entitle the petitioners to raise challenge before this Court. In the context of legal position we are not expected to intervene and exercise our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Appropriate forum to raise such compassionate grounds may be the authority concerned with the matter of transfer of higher supervisory authority. 11. In the above, no case has been made out for interference in regard to the transfer order of any of tire petitioners. Each of these writ petitions is liable to be dismissed. 12. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Stay orders are discharged. No order as to costs.