S.N. Phukan, J.: - This is a petition for issuance of an appropriate Writ for setting aside the order of transfer of the petitioner issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura at Agartala to South Tripura District and also the order of transfer of the District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura posting the petitioner in the Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabroom (vide Annexure-B to the present petition). 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the Office Secretary of the Central Committee of the Tripura Government Employees' Association which is similar to the pest of Assistant Secretary of the other employees' Union and as such he cannot be transferred. It has been alleged that as the Association to which the petitioner belongs is a supporter and sympathiser of Left and Democratic movements in the State, the transfer order has been passed by the present government which is a coalition ministry of Congress (I) and TUJS. According to the petitioner the Tripura Government Employees Federation which is a supporter of Congress (I) is putting pressure on the government to transfer the present petitioner in order to weaken the organisational strength of the Association to which the petitioner belongs. According to the petitioner, for the last ten years the office bearers of the State level, District level and Sub-Divisional Level committees of the employees' Association were not transferred in order to enable them to perform their normal trade union functions. 3. It has also been stated that the only son of the petitioner, who is aged about 21 years, is orthopaedically handicapped and his care and well being will suffer if the petitioner is transferred. The petitioner is also a chronic patient of diabetes and is suffering from Gastro Intestinal trouble and if he is transferred he will not be able to get adequate medical treatment. 4. We have beard Mr. D. P. Kundu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Barman Roy, learned Advocate General. 5. Before we proceed further it would be convenient to re-state the power of Writ Court in interfering with the orders of transfer made by competent authority. 4. We have beard Mr. D. P. Kundu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Barman Roy, learned Advocate General. 5. Before we proceed further it would be convenient to re-state the power of Writ Court in interfering with the orders of transfer made by competent authority. We are also conscious of the fact that in exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution however extensive the jurisdiction under this Article may be, it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a Court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the impugned order and that the power is only supervisory in nature. This is the settled position of law as laid down by the Apex Court. 6. Before us a catena of decisions have been placed regarding power of the Writ Court in interfering with the orders of transfer passed by a competent authority. We may summaries the position as follows : - (a) The government or its functionaries have power 10 transfer its employees employed in a transferable past as transfer is an incident of service to meet the exigencies of the administration. No right is conferred on a government servant for being posted at a specified place. (b) authorities in-charge of an employee are the sole judges about the necessity or desirability of such transfer as they have to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of their employees. The provision of transfer is intended to check creation of vested interest, nepotism and corruption. (c) This power of transfer, however, should be exercised only bonafide and reasonably and in public interest. If any transfer of an employee is made on extraneous consideration or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to malafide and colourable exercise of power. A transfer is malafide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in exigencies of service. (d) In case a transfer order is malafids or (sic) oblique motive, such as by way of punishment or for collateral reasons the Writ Court can interfere with the orders of transfer. 7. (d) In case a transfer order is malafids or (sic) oblique motive, such as by way of punishment or for collateral reasons the Writ Court can interfere with the orders of transfer. 7. It is very easy to allege malafides, but until there is acceptable material it would not be appropriate to read motives in the action of the authorities and malafide has to be established by positive evidence and we are quite conscious that often it is an uphill task. However, there may be circumstances which may lead to irresistable conclusion that the action was malafide. (See, Jogendra Mohanty vs. State of Orissa & Others, 1979 (1) SLR 897 : Prakash Chandra Saxena vs. State of M.P. & Others, 1980 (1) SLR 788 ; Sheshrao Nagarao Umap vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, 1985 (2) SLR 328; Achyutananda Behera vs. State of Orissa & Others. 1984 (2) SLR 16). 8. The first contention is that the petitioner being the Office Secretary of the Central Committee of the Tripura Government Employees' Association which is similar to the post of Assistant Secretary of other employees' Union cannot be transferred in view of the practice followed for the last 10 (ten) years that the office bearers of the State level. District level and Sub Divisional level committees are not transferred so as to enable them to perform their normal Trade Union functions in the interest of the employees' at large. Our attention has been drawn to a confidential circular issued by the Secretary to the Chief Minister, Government of Tripura on June 28, 1979 whereby it was clarified that the following office bearers of Tripura Government Employees' Federation shall not bs transferred. The said office bearers are (1) State Committee-President, Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Treasurer; (2) Sub-Divisional Committee President and Secretary. The present petitioner does not belong to the Tripura Government Employees' Federation. However, Mr. Kundu submits that unless this benefit is extended to other Associations of the government employees' it will be discriminatory and as such violative of Article-16 of the Constitution. Mr. Barman Roy, learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner has not challenged the above confidential circular and as such the contention of Mr. Kundu has no forces We need not enter into this controversy at present and let us proceed on the assumption that this benefiit is applicable to the present petitioner. Mr. Barman Roy, learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner has not challenged the above confidential circular and as such the contention of Mr. Kundu has no forces We need not enter into this controversy at present and let us proceed on the assumption that this benefiit is applicable to the present petitioner. From this confidential circular we do not find the post of Office Secretary. Though the petitioner is trying to make out a case that the post of Office Secretary of the Central Committee is similar to the past of Assistant Secretary of other employees' Union we are unable to hold that the above confidential circular will apply to the present petitioner as the office bearers have been specifically mentioned in the said circular and if the intention would have been to include Office Secretary the said office would have found place in the said circular. We are, therefore, constrained to bold that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the said circular. 9. The next contention is that if the petitioner is transferred the organisational work of his Association in toe Central office at Agartala will be seriously hampered and this is the sole reason for his transfer. This contention is also not acceptable as there are other office beares to look after the employees' Association. Incidentally, we would like to mention that the only function of employee' Association is to look after the welfare of the government esipbyjes1 belonging to the said Association and as such w-s do not see bow the organisational works will suffer. 10. In the petition it has been stated that Tripura Government Employees' Association and Tripura Employees' Coordination Committee are supporters and sympathisers of Left and Democratic movements whereas Tripura Government Employees' Federation is a strong and staunch supporter of Indian National Congress(I). We are shocked and amazed to find such a statement in a petition filed by a public servant whose main duty is to serve the public. All government employees should bear in mind that they are paid from the public exchequer and their main duty is to serve the public irrespective of political affiliation. In Tripura services (Duties. Right and Obligations of the Government Employees) Rules.1982, it has been provided that every government employee shall in the discharge of his duties rise above all personal, political and other consideration? vide Clause (c), Rule 3. In Tripura services (Duties. Right and Obligations of the Government Employees) Rules.1982, it has been provided that every government employee shall in the discharge of his duties rise above all personal, political and other consideration? vide Clause (c), Rule 3. In Clause (b) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rule it is also provided that no government employee shall be a member of any political party, we hope and trust that the government will take effective measures to eliminate political influence in the public services of the State so that public servant can discharge their functions without any bias and without any fear or favour. 11. For the reasons stated above, as the petitioner is holding a transferable post which is an incident of service, the respondent have power to transfer the petitioner in public interest. We do not find any extraneous considerations or oblique motive for the said transfer. 12. Regarding the domestic problem of the petitioner, namely, care and well being of his handicapped son aged about 21 years, illness of the petitioner and his wife the appropriate forum for getting relief is the transferring authority. While making his submission Mr. Kundu stated that the petitioner is prepared to serve at any place which can be easily reached from Agartala so that the petitioner can come occasionally to Agartala to attend his family problem. In view of the above submission we give liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority within a period of 7 (seven) days from today and make a representation which shall be considered by the said authority within a period of seven days after filing of the said representation. During the aforesaid period the petitioner need not move out of Agartala for complying the transfer order. With the above direction, the petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.