J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer from Ahmedabad to Bhatia passed by the respondents- management. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee of respondents who is working as a Senior Grade Assistent which is a Class III post in the pay scale of Rs. 350 The petitioner has inter alia contended in this petition that he is the Secretary of the Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Employees Union (Union for short hereinafter ). It is alleged that the petitioner has been subjected to harassment and unfair labour practice adopted by the respondents-management because he is engaged in union activities and because of litigations filed by him against the respondents before this court and in various other Courts. In order to get rid off the petitioner as it is further alleged he has been transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhatia. This action of the respondents is allegedly mala fides and to victimise the petitioner who is the Secretary of the Union. According to the ease of the petitioner the respondents-management has transferred him from Ahmedabad to Bhatia which is about 1000 miles away from Ahmedabad soaks to see him out of the sphere of trade union and to keep himself away from participating as a union representative in the union activities which he has been doing for the upliftment of the employees since more than 15 years. It is further pleaded that there are no administrative exigencies for his transfer. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has also alleged that apart from victimisation on account of trade union activities the impugned transfer order is required to be interfered with on the ground of family circumstances of the petitioner which are so compelling for him so as to remain in Ahmedabad. It is further contended by the petitioner that his son is suffering from serious illeness and the treatment which he is given in Ahmedabad is not available in any other place. The petitioner was as such transferred to Ahmedabad on medical grounds particularly in view of the fact hat his son was suffering from such a serious illness. Thus the petitioner has contended that the impugned transfer order passed by the respondents-management is arbitrary tainted with mala fides capricious discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consuitution of India. Thus the petitioner has contended that the impugned transfer order passed by the respondents-management is arbitrary tainted with mala fides capricious discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consuitution of India. ( 4 ) IN short the challenge against the impugned transfer order is made on two grounds (I) that the order is passed with mala rides and (ii) on the compelling family circumstances of the petitioner. The interference by this court is thus asked for against the impunged transfer order on the ground of mala fides and personal family circumstances of the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE respondents appeared and resisted the petition. All the allegations made in the petition are traversed and controverted. It is denied that the petitioner is subjected to any harassment or any unfair labour practice because of he being a union leader or for any litigation filed by him. It is specifically denied that the petitioner has been transferred at a place situated at 1000 miles away from Ahemdabad. It is contended that the distance between Ahmedabad and Bhatia is approximately 400 kms. as staled in the affidavitin-reply. According to the contention of the respondents the petitioner was ordered to be transferred from Ahmedabad to Bauxite Project at Bhatia in Jamnagar District by passing an order dated 3-1-1987 and on the same day by passing relieving order the petitioner was relieved from the head-office with immediate effect. As the petitioner refused to accept the transfer order on 3-1-1987 at about 3. 15 p. m. in presence of the Assistant Manager (Personnel) the respondents had sent a telegram at 4. 25 p. m. regarding there- in the circumstances in which the petitioner refused to accept the order of transfer and relieving order and the same was conveyed to the petitioner. Thus according to the respondents the petitioner came to be relieved from the Head Office at Ahmedabad on 3-1-1987 and he stood transferred to Bhatia in Jamnagar District. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Union leader. However the respondents have contended that there is no victimisation on account of trade union activities on the part of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Union leader. However the respondents have contended that there is no victimisation on account of trade union activities on the part of the petitioner. On the contrary it is contended by the respondents that though the petitioner was doing Union activities and he was also the Secretary of the Union in 1983 he was accommodated and transferred at his request on two to three occasions and the fact that the petitioner being the Secretary of the Union did not matter in giving him place of his own choice. It is further contended that the petitioner is now transferred to Bauxite project which is going on in Bhatia on administrative exigencies. There is no mala fides. There is no arbitrariness. It is further contended that the fact that the Union Office is situated in Ahmedabad or the petitioner happens to be the Secretary of the Union cannot confer immunity to the petitioner from transfer particularly when the petitioner is transferred like other employees and in past also the petitioner was transferred. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-reply that family circumstances and the personal hardships cannot be a matter constituting sufficient ground to set aside the order of transfer. At the most it may be a matter for preferring a departmental representation. The respondents-management has also staled that it is not aware as to whether the son of the petitioner still requires treatment in Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad and that the said treatment is available only in Ahmedabad. Thus both the grounds on which the transfer order is challenged are vehemently denied. ( 7 ) IT is seriously contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he impugned transfer order is mala fides and therefore it is required to be quashed. This contention is seriously opposed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is holding a transferable post. A person who is holding a transferable post is liable to be transferred from one place to other on administrative ground and in the public interest. The contention that the impuged transfer order is actuated by mala fides is not sustainable in the facts of the present case. A person who is holding a transferable post is liable to be transferred from one place to other on administrative ground and in the public interest. The contention that the impuged transfer order is actuated by mala fides is not sustainable in the facts of the present case. The burden of establishing mala fides is undoubtedly very heavy and it has to be established by the person who propounds it. The allegations of mala fides are often very easily made than proved and the very seriousness of such allegations demand proof of very high order of credibility. Merely because some averments are made in the petition and the impugned order of transfer is labelled as stainted with mala fides is itself not sufficient to constitute a sufficient ground to interfere with and quash it. To make out a case for interference in matters of transfer there should be substantial and strong material. There is no doubt that the respondents-management are entitled to decide on consideration of the necessities of the corporations business whether transfer of an employee should be made to a particular place or to a particular project. Undoubtedly the management of the respondents would be in the best position to judge as to when to post where to post and how to distribute its employees between different offices and projects. Undoubtedly the management of the respondents would be in the best position to judge as to when to post where to post and how to distribute its employees between different offices and projects. Therefore the Court should be very careful and circumspect before any interference with the orders like the transfer order made by the respondents management in consequence of their managerial responsibilities No doubt it is true that if the order of transfer is actuated by mala fides or for some ulterior purpose like to get rid off an employee from his trade union activities the Court should interfere and quash such an order of transfer If the exercise of power of the management is not legal or is colourable exercise or mala fides exercise then in that case interference of the Court is warranted However as held in a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case or Syndicate Bank Limited v. The Work- men reported in AIR 1966 SC 1284 the finding of mala fides should be reached by the Court only if there is sufficient and proper evidence in support of that finding Such a finding should not be reached capriciously or on flimsy ground Therefore it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that there is substantial and concrete material or evidence indicating mala fides exercise of power There is no material worth the candle on the record of the instant case indicating the mala fides exercise of power by the respondents-management in passing the impugned transfer order. The heavy burden of establishing malafides on the part of the petitioner is not discharged and unless the allegation of mala fides is established with proof of high order credibility the Court should not interfere with such transfer orders This view is fully fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu. reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 It would be interesting to refer to the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in para 92 of the said decision which reads as under:secondly 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 Credibitity Here the petitioner who was himself one the Chief Secretary has flung a series of charges of oblique conduct against the Chief Minister. That is in itself a rather extraordinary and unusual occurance and if these charges are true they are bound to shake the confidence of the people in the political custodians of power in the State and therefore the anxiety of the Court should be all the greater to insist on a high degree of proof 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 land 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 serious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made 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 standpoint that we must assess the merits of the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against the second respondentit is very clear from the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court that unless and until the allegations of mala fides are clearly established with a proof of high order of credibility the court would not interfere with such impugned orders ( 8 ) IN a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case or Taragauri Kalyanji v. Dist. Panchayat Jamnagar reported in 1984 GLH 589 it is observed that the circumstances where a Court functioning under Article 226 of the Constitution would be justified in interfering with an order of transfer only when a gross violation of rules or self-declared policy relating to transfer indicating prima facie that there is a clear case of discrimination or circumstances which eloquently speak of mala fides would justify such interference. Thus in order to call for an interference of the Court it must be satisfactorily proved that there existed mala fides which actuated the passing of the impugned order. The Supreme Court in a decision rendered in the case of Union of India v. H. K. Kirtanie reported in 1989 (2) GLH 380 has held that transfer order should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing ground rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or mala fides. In the present case there is no allegation of any violation of any statutory rules by passing the impugned transfer order. The allegation of mala fides is not proved. In the present case there is no allegation of any violation of any statutory rules by passing the impugned transfer order. The allegation of mala fides is not proved. Thus there is no any just and valid justification warranting the interference of this court against the impugned transfer order. The petitioner being an employee holding a transferable post is liable to be transferred from one place to other. He has no legal right to insist for his continuance at Ahmedabad or at any other place of his own choice. ( 9 ) AS also held by the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director Health Services reported in AIR 1981 SC 1577 transfer of a Government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reason. The Courts should not interfere in such matters. This decision of the Supreme Court and the decision in the case of Taragauri Kalyanji (supra) were considered by this Court in a decision rendered in the case of J. K. Dave v. State of Gujarat reported in 1989 (1) GLR 466. After having considered the aforesaid two decisions this Court has held that simply because some averments are made in the petition that the order of transfer is actuated by mala fides and the order of transfer is labelled as discriminatory it does not become discriminatory or cannot be regarded to have been passed on account of mala fides. It is further observed in the said decision by this court that to make out a case for interference in the matters of transfer there should be concrete material which should be unimpeachable in character. It must be remembered that for running smoothly the administration of any organisation the appropriate executive authority must have sufficient play at the joints. If sufficient leeway is not granted to the executive authority in matters like transfer of an employee the administrative machinery may be collapsed or working of the same may come to a grinding halt. It was further observed by this Court that just as the wearer only knows where the shoe pinches only the administrative. If sufficient leeway is not granted to the executive authority in matters like transfer of an employee the administrative machinery may be collapsed or working of the same may come to a grinding halt. It was further observed by this Court that just as the wearer only knows where the shoe pinches only the administrative. Head of the organisation would know how difficult it is to make necessary adjustment and accommodation for keeping the administrative machinery in smooth gear much more so in these days of all pervading attitude of passing on the buck and the last respect for the ethics of work culture. The aforesaid observations of this court are very pertinent. It was also contended in the said case before this Court that the petitioner in that case who had put in lesser number of years of service at Gandhinagar had been order to be transferred at Rajkot. It was observed by this Court that transfer is not to be made on the basis of seniority of employees or on the basis of a serial order to be arranged according to length of service at a particular place. Transfer of an employee is a matter of adjustment and accommodation to be made by the administrative authority concerned. Therefore it was held by this Court that it is solely within the powers of the executive and it is not to be interfered with by courts unless a strong and unimpeachable evidence or mala fides is furnished. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Court in the case of D. S. P. Vadodara v. Chhatrasing reported in 27 (2) GLH 1210 After having considered the decisions reported in (1) AIR 1981 SC 1597 (2) 1984 GLH 581 (3) 1984 GLH 589 and (4) 26 GLR 509 this Court has held that it is well settled principle of law that ordinarily court would not interfere in matters of transfers very lightly because it affects the administration of the state or a public body adversely. But the Court would undoutedly interefere where there is a clear case of mala fides or contravention of some rules regulations or guidelines laid down by the State. In this case the transfer of the officer concerned is stated to be for the administrative reason and in the exigency of service. But the Court would undoutedly interefere where there is a clear case of mala fides or contravention of some rules regulations or guidelines laid down by the State. In this case the transfer of the officer concerned is stated to be for the administrative reason and in the exigency of service. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1981 SC 1577 it is not open to the court to examine the ground of exigency of service or administrative reasons. Therefore the impugned order of transfer has to be upheld unless it is shown to be mala fides or contrary to the Rules or Regulations. It was further observed that although it would have been better if the appellants had specifically denied this allegation but it would not be proper to hold that in absence of specific denial the general denial should be ignored and it should be accepted as an admitted fact because of specific non-denial. Relying on the said observations it is contended that in the present case the petitioner has failed to prove by showing an unimpeachable evidence to show that the impugned transfer order was actuated by mala fides. The allegations in the present case are general in nature and no allegation is made against any specified person or officer. The respondents-management is a state instrumentality and the management goes on changing. Therefore mere allegation of mala fides against the respondents-management without specific proof or specific instances against a specific person cannot be accepted at its face value as genuine or of high order of credibility. ( 11 ) THE petitioner has failed to show any material of an unimpeachable nature to the effect that the impugned transfer order was passed with mala fides by the respondent-management. In absence of any proof of mala fides the petitioner must fail. ( 12 ) IN the present case not only the petitioner has failed to substantiate his allegations of mala fides qua the impugned transfer order but the respondents-management has successfully shown that the transfer order was only actuated by administrative exigencies and in the public interest. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been working as Secretary of the Union since more than 15 years. The contention that the petitioner is subjected to harassment by the respondents on account of his Union activities is not substantiated. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been working as Secretary of the Union since more than 15 years. The contention that the petitioner is subjected to harassment by the respondents on account of his Union activities is not substantiated. On the contrary the petitioner who was also a union leader and the Secretary of the Union in 1983 was accommodated by the management and posted him by transfer at Ahmedabad from Ambaji project on account of personal representation made to the management. This is a pointer and indication that the fact that the petitioner is the secretary of the Union or office-bearer of the Union did not matter with the management and in 1983 he was accommodated at his own request at Ahmedabad. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been working at Ahmedabad since June 1983. The impugned transfer order came to be passed on 3-1-1987 whereby the petitioner came to be transferred from Ahmedabad to Bhatia Bauxite Project. It is contended that the petitioner even refused to accept the transfer order. It is very clear from the affidavit-in-reply that the transfer order was sought to he served on the petitioner in the office on 3-1-1987. But the petitioner wantonly avoided the service of transfer order with the result the management had to inform the petitioner by a telegram which is not in dispute. The petitioner as such stood relieved from the office of Ahmedabad with effect from 3- 1-1987. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents-management that the petitioner despite the relieving order passed against him as early as on 3-1-1987 has not resumed at Bhatia. In that it is submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he does not deserve to be given any equitable and extraordinary relief under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution. The thing may be noted at this stage. The noncompliance of transfer order passed by the managment concerned may expose the concerned employee to further disciplinary actions prescribed. Merely because he has not resumed or reported at the transferred stations that fact ipso facto would not rob him off the right to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. No doubt it may be open for the management to recourse to disciplinary proceedings for non- compliance of the transfer order passed by the managment. Merely because he has not resumed or reported at the transferred stations that fact ipso facto would not rob him off the right to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. No doubt it may be open for the management to recourse to disciplinary proceedings for non- compliance of the transfer order passed by the managment. In this behalf the learned Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram reported in AIR 1989 SC 1433 This judgment is also in respect of non-observance of the order of transfer on the part of the employee concerned which led to the ultimate discharge from the service. In that case the transfer order passed against the employee was avoided with the resuit the management had initiated disciplinary actions against him. It was found in the said case by the Supreme Court that the order of discharge from the service on the ground of non-observance of order of transfer was sufficient and efficient to discharge the person from the service. The ratio of the said decision would not be directly applicable to the facts of the present case. However what is relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents is the observations made by the Supreme Court in that decision. In the said case it is observed that the order of transfer if not stayed modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order he would expose him- self to disciplinary action under the relevant order. Relying on the said observations it was contended that the petitioner who is seeking suitable relief and extra ordinary relief is himself guilty of non-compliance of the order of transfer and therefore he should not be considered qualified for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying on the said observations it was contended that the petitioner who is seeking suitable relief and extra ordinary relief is himself guilty of non-compliance of the order of transfer and therefore he should not be considered qualified for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. As observed hereinbefore it will be for the management to take appropriate actions as deemed fit by the management and as available under the concerned disciplinary rules for non-observance of the transfer order. In so far as the facts of the present case are concerned the ratio of the said decision would not be squarely applicable in the instant case. ( 13 ) IN view of the facts on record the allegation of mala fides is not substantiated. It cannot be said that the impugned transfer order is by way of punishment or suffers from the vices of arbitrariness or discrimination. The distance between Ahmedabad and Bhatia in Jamnagar District is not 1000 miles as alleged by the petitioner. But the distance between Ahmedabad and Bhatia is approximately 400 kms. as staled in the affidavitin-reply filed by the Assistant Personnel officer of the respondent-Corporation. The transfer order came to be passed on 3-1-1987 and the present petition was filed on 10-1-1989. Therefore it is contended on benefit of the respondents that the petition suffers from the vices of delay and laches. No doubt the petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily explain as to why the petition came to be filed so late. However mere late filing of the petition would not itself in the facts of the present case disentitle the petitioner from challenging the legality and validity of the impugned transfer order. The allegation that the petitioner is transferred at Bhatia so as to keep him away from Union activities is also not substantiated. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that on the contrary the Union in which the petitioner is the Secretary commends membership of about 100 employees against the total strength of 136 employees at Bhatia and there are only two members out of 136 employees in the Union of the petitioner at Ahmedabad. It is also pointed out that since 1985 the petitioners Union has lost majority of membership and except Bhatia it does not commend substantial membership at any other project. It is also pointed out that since 1985 the petitioners Union has lost majority of membership and except Bhatia it does not commend substantial membership at any other project. As against this it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the number of membership of the Union is not material as the head office is at Ahmedabad. It is found from the facts in the instant case that the grievance of the petitioner that he is transferred to keep him away from the Union activities is factually misconceived and unsustainable. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the strength of Members of the petitioners Union at Bhatia is less than what is stated by the respondents then also that fact by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the impugned order is passed to victimise the petitioner. ( 14 ) THE petitioner has been working as an employee with the respondents-management since more than 15 years and is holding a transferable post. The petitioner is the Secretary of the Union since 1978 He was working at Kadi Project in Baroda District in 1978. The petitioner had required the management to transfer him from Kadi Project to Ambaji on the ground of his family circumstance and also because of the fact that the petitioner belongs to Patan. The request of the petitioner was favourably considered by the respondents and consequently pursuant to the said request of the petitioner though he was the Secretary of the Union at that time he was transferred to Ambaji by passing transfer order dated 23-3-1978. The petitioner however preferred a representation for retaining him at Kadi Pani and withdrew his request for his transfer to Ambaji Project. The representation was preferred on 2-4-1978 and was signed by some workers of Kadi Pani project supporting the said representation. It was stated by the workers who supported the said representation that the petitioners presence was necessary for Union activities at Kadi Pani Project. The representation was preferred on 2-4-1978 and was signed by some workers of Kadi Pani project supporting the said representation. It was stated by the workers who supported the said representation that the petitioners presence was necessary for Union activities at Kadi Pani Project. The General Secretary of the Union also had intervened and finally by order dated 3 the transfer of the petitioner from Kadi Pani project to Ambaji project was postponed temporarily until negotiations with the Union has been concluded Again by letter dated 18-7-1978 the petitioner had requested for transfer to Ambaji on the ground of sickness of his mother and brother It will be material to note that the said request of the petitioner on personal ground was subscribed to by the management and the petitioner was transferred from Kadi Pani Project to Ambaji Project by order dated 19-7-1978. It will be further interesting to note that likewise in the year 1983 the petitioner again requested for transfer from Ambaji Project to Ahmedabad. The petitioner had met the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation on 1-6-1983 and requested for his transfer to Ahmedabad on the ground that his child required treatment in Ahmedabad. The medical certificate issued by one Dr. C. D. Dave of Baroda was also submitted to the management in support of his plea that his son required medical treatment. The management on such an oral representation made by the petitioner for transfer and the petitioner came lobe transferred at Ahmedabad from Ambaji Project by virtue of transfer order dated 2-6- 1983. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was also doing Union activities and was holding the post of the Secretary of the Union in 1978 and also in 1983. The facts enumerated above would explicitly indicate the in the past the petitioner was accommodated and transferred at his request on two occasions though he was doing Union activities and he was holding the post of Secretary of the Union. Therefore the contention that the management has passed the impugned transfer order so as to deprive the petitioner from taking participation in the Union activities is not only not proved but disproved. Therefore the contention that the management has passed the impugned transfer order so as to deprive the petitioner from taking participation in the Union activities is not only not proved but disproved. As such the management had considered the request for transfer made by the petitioner in past and he was accommodated and given place of his choice it is therefore contended on behalf of the respondents-management that the case of victimisation on account of Union activities is no only misconceived but is far from truth and it has been made so as not to go out of Ahmedabad. It is further contended that merely a person who is working as Secretary of the Union or who is an officer-bearer of the Union do not get immunity from being transferred even on the ground of administrative exigencies. This contention is also well founded. ( 15 ) IN fact when the petitioner fails to show that the impugned action of transfer is tainted with mala fides or is an outcome of mala fides than obviously the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Transfer is an incident of service and when it is required on administrative grounds the person affected thereby is not entitled to any relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However it was vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that mere defence that the impugned transfer order came to be passed on administrative ground or on administrative exigncies is not enough. As stated earlier when the petition filed on the allegation of mala fides heavy onus lies on the petitioner to substantiate the said allegation of male fides by cogent and concrete material on record. If the allegation of male fides falls through then the petition is required to be rejected. Ordinarily it would not be necessary for the respondents-management to show the fo equels events or administrative circumstances leading to the rise of the transfer order of an employee on administrative ground or in the public interest. If the petitioner fails to prove the allegations made by him in the petition the petition reserves to be rejected. However it will be interesting to note that in the present case the respondents-management has also successfully shown that the impugned order came to be passed on administrative exigencies. If the petitioner fails to prove the allegations made by him in the petition the petition reserves to be rejected. However it will be interesting to note that in the present case the respondents-management has also successfully shown that the impugned order came to be passed on administrative exigencies. It is very clear from the affidavit of the Personnel Officer of the respondent-Corporation that there was a request to the Head office at Ahmedabad by the Manager in-charge of Bhatia Project to post additional person at Bhatia Project to meet with the increased work. The additional person required was for clerical work. The telephonic request which was made by in-charge Manager of Bhatia Project to the head Office was also followed on by a letter dated 19-12-1985. Although in the letter of the In-charge Manager of Bhatia Project it was stated that a person in the of grade of Senior Assistant be sent to Bhatia project it was thought expellent and proper by the management to transfer and post the petitioner at Bhatia Project since the petitioner was in selection grade of Assistants and had considerable experience in maintaining registers under the Mining Regulations. There is no dispute about the fact that at Bhatia Project in Jamnagar District there is bauxite mines of the respondent Corporation. It would be also interesting to mention at this stage that the Bhatia Project incharge Manager had also written a letter on 19- 2 whereby it was brought to the notice of the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation that failure on the part of the petitioner to resume work at Bhatia Project was creating difficulties in the work. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has failed to report or resume his duties at the transferred station i. e. at Bhatia in pursuance of the transfer order dated 3-1-1987. The sequence of events and the correspondence produced on record by the respondent-management would unequivocally demonstrate that the impugned order of transfer was passed only due to administrative exigencies. Therefore not only that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his allegation of mala fides and victimisation but the respondents-management has explicitly substantiated the defence that the impugned order came to be passed on the basis of administrative grounds. Therefore not only that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his allegation of mala fides and victimisation but the respondents-management has explicitly substantiated the defence that the impugned order came to be passed on the basis of administrative grounds. Though ordinarily it would not be necessary for the respondents- management to substantiate the plea of administrative exigencies this Court had desired that the respondents may also enlighten this Court on this aspect Consequently the Personnel Officer of the respondent-Corporation Mr. Pandya has filed additional affidavit-in-reply and had submitted copies of relevant correspondence between the Project Manager at Bhatia and the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. ( 16 ) IN the course of the Marathon submissions made before this Court the learned Counsel for the petitioner had vehemently contended that the particulars of the alleged administrative exigencies were not given. This contention now does not survive as the respondents-management has shown from the record the circumstances leading to the passing of the impugned transfer order on administrative exigencies. ( 17 ) IN so far as the second ground of attack on the impugned transfer order is concerned it may be mentioned that the petitioner has contended in para 7 of the petition that the family circumstances of the petitioner are so compelliing which also required interference of this Court against the impugned transfer order. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was transferred to Ahmedabad from Ambaji Project in 1983 on his request on personal grounds. His representation to the respondents-management was acceded. The petitioner has further averred in his petition in Para 7 that he was transferred to Ahmedabad on medical grounds particularly in view of the fact that his son was suffering from serious illness and that his son was required to take treatment in Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad. It is further contended that the said treatment is not available at any other place. It is further contended that the said treatment is not available at any other place. It may be indicated at this stage that-mere personal difficulty or family circumstance of the petitioner even if they are assumed to be genuine and correct would not be ipse dixit sufficient to prevent the management or master from passing transfer orders on administrative exigencies Could it be conceived even for a moment that the family circumstance and personal hardship could constitute a sufficient and valid ground to quash the transfer order by resorting to the extraordinary remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution ? The spontaneously answer would be in the negative Needless to mention that in a case of transferable post hardship to some extent may be inherent. The person affected by the transfer order may have personal or family difficulties. In such a situation would it be expedient to encourage the practice of rushing to the Court invoking the extraordinary provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India ? Again the answer would be in the negative it cannot be said that there is no other alternative remedy or forum where his personal difficulty or family difficulty could be shown Petitioner has not made any representation to the management on this ground which is now raised in this petition. It was open for the petitioner to agitate this grievance before the management or the concerned transfering authority. Having not been done or not resorting to such a remedy the petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order invoking the aids of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a matter of common understanding that transfer entails at times some difficulties and hardship to the employee concerned or his/her family members. But it would not be proper and advisable to straightway rush to the Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order came to be passed on 3-1-1987. The petition came to be filed on 10-7-1987. The petitioner has never made any representation to the management against his transfer on the ground of said pressing family cicumstance as alleged now in this petition during the period from 3 till 10-7-1987. Therefore it is contended on behalf of the respondents that under the guise of victimastion and/or family circumstances the petitioner does not want to go out of Ahmedabad. Therefore it is contended on behalf of the respondents that under the guise of victimastion and/or family circumstances the petitioner does not want to go out of Ahmedabad. This contention cannot be slightly brushed aside. ( 18 ) ADMITTEDLY the management had considered the personal request of the petitioner in past at least on two occasions in 1978 and 1983. Even on merits of the second allegation against the transfer order there is not fit case warrranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since this point is raised and this Court is addressed at a greater length this Court has also examined the merits of the second ground of attack against the impugned transfer order. In the facts of the present case this Court is extremely unable to uphold the second ground of attack on the basis of the alleged family circumstances of the petitioner. Such a contention is actually found misconceived. Incidentally it may be noted that in para 7 of the petition the petitioner has stated that his son who is suffering from a serious illness is required to take treatment at Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad and such treatment is not available at any other place. Unfortunately there is no sufficient material on record to accept this contention. The petitioner came to be transferred from Ambaji to Ahmedabad in 1983 on personal grounds. His personal request for transfer was sympathetically considered and accepted. There is no any acceptable medical opinion or evidence to show that the son of the petitioner is still suffering from serious illness and secondly that the treatment which is required to be given to his son is not available at any other place. In the absence of any clear and cogent evidence or material such a plea cannot be sustained. Again it will be interesting to mention that in para 6 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 18-8-1987 the petitioner has stated that the disease of the son of the petitioner is of a peculiar type and long time treatment is to be given and it is not possible to give such treatment at Bhatia and not possible anywhere except at Ahmedabad or Baroda. In para 7 of the petition the petitioner has vehemently contended that such treatment is available only in Ahmedabad and in para 6 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder he has stated that the treatment is available only in Ahmedabad or Baroda. Even while taking a liberal view and ignoring such a discrepancy and incosistenccy the same cannot be accepted at its face value without any opinion of a medical expert or any medical certificate or evidence in this behalf. Therefore the second ground of attack i. e. pressing family circumstance cannot be acceted to quash the impugned transfer order. ( 19 ) HOWEVER it may be mentioned that it will be open for the petitioner to make a representation with sufficient supporting material to the management about the serious illness of his son and it will be open for the management to consider the representation as and when made on merits sympathetiacally. The respondents-management has earlier considered such a representation. In 1978 the petitioner had requested for his transfer from Kadi Pani Project to Ambaji Project on the ground that his mother and brother were not keeping well. The management had acceded to such a request and the petitioner came to be transferred from Kadi Pani Project to Ambaji Project by order dated 19-7-1978. Again the petitioner came to be transferred on his cral request on the ground of illness of his son in 1983. The petitioner was transferred from Ambaji to Ahmedabad in 1983 as the respondents-management had accepted the request of the petitioner for transfer and by order dated 1-6-1983 the petitioner came to be transferred from Ambaji Project to Ahmedabad. Despite the fact that the petitioner was doing Union activities and he was holding the post of Secretary of the Union in 1978 as well as in 1983 the respondents-management had favourably considered the personal request made by the petitioner. Therefore it is hoped that the respondents-management will look into the said affected grievance of the petitioner as regards the illness of his son and redress his grievances sympathetically on merits if and as and when such a representation is made by the petitioner. ( 20 ) WHILE summing up it may be mentioned that the petitioner is holding a clerical post in Class III which is a transferable post and transfer of an employee on the administrative exigencies is a right of the management and the executive. ( 20 ) WHILE summing up it may be mentioned that the petitioner is holding a clerical post in Class III which is a transferable post and transfer of an employee on the administrative exigencies is a right of the management and the executive. In fact transfer is an incident of service. The petitioner was transferred on two occasions earlier on his request and he has been working in Ahmedabad since 1983. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondents-management has different mines and projects situated at different places in the State of Gujarat. The transfer of an employee in Class III is an incidental phenomenen of service. There are numerous instances of transfers of Class III employees of the respondent-Corporation from one project to anonther. In fact it is found from the record of the instant case that there were as many as transfer of 121 employees of Class III and Class IV during the period from April 198 7/03/1990 The employees of the respondent Corporation belonging to Class III and Class IV came to be transferred from one project to other on different dates in different parts of the Gujarat State having regard to the exigencies of work and in the interest of administration. The petitioner came to be transferred on two occasions earlier i. e. in 1978 and 1983 by the management on his personal request. So the transfer of an employee belonging to Class III to which the petitioner belongs is a usual and routine incidence of service and the right to transfer when to transfer where to transfer and to whom to transfer are the questions falling within the exclusive domaine or premise or the master of the management. How to distribute the employees in different projects of the respondent-Corporation is a concern of the management and the master. Needless to mention that Court much less a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with such an order of transfer unless and until the impugned order of action is shown to be mala fides exercise of power or in violation of the rules and regulations. In the present case there is no allegation of violation of any rule. The allegation of mala fidesnd victimisation are not proved. On the contrary the respodents-management has successefully shown that the impugned transfer order came to be passed on administrative grounds. . In the present case there is no allegation of violation of any rule. The allegation of mala fidesnd victimisation are not proved. On the contrary the respodents-management has successefully shown that the impugned transfer order came to be passed on administrative grounds. . ( 21 ) WHENEVER there is a conflict between the interest of the individual and the interest of the administration the former has to give a way. A person who is holding a transferable post is liable to be transferred from one place to other on administrative grounds. The petitioner was transferred lastly from Ambaji Project to Ahmedabad in June 1983. Thereafter he came to be transferred from Ahemdabad to Bhatia Project in January 1987. As observed hereinbefore the contention of the respondents-management that the petitioner has not resumed duties at the transferred station despite the fact that he was relieved from Ahmedabad office would not assume any material significance in the present case. There is no any manner of doubt that the managment of the respondent-Corporation would be in the best position to judge how to distribute its employees between the different offices and projects of the Corporation. In the facts of the present case the present petition is totally meritless and deserves to be rejected. ( 22 ) IN fact service law on transfer is very much explored and expounded by the catena of judicial pronouncement of this Court and the Apex Court of the land. The facts of each case are required to be examined in the light of the settled proposition of service law on transfer. Since this Court was addressed at a Marathon length and serious allegations of mala fides and victimisation on the ground of Union activities etc. were alleged it was thought expedient to elaborate the facts and the relevant law so as to effectively adjudicate upon the controversy in this petition. The allegations of mala fides are not proved. As such the allegations of mala fides are misconceived. On the contrary the management has successully proved that the impugned tranfer order was actuated only on administrative exigencies. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the relevant case law enumerated hereinbefore this Court has no option but to reject this petition summarily at the stage of admission being. totally meritless. ( 23 ) IN the result the petition is rejected. Notice discharged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the relevant case law enumerated hereinbefore this Court has no option but to reject this petition summarily at the stage of admission being. totally meritless. ( 23 ) IN the result the petition is rejected. Notice discharged. Having regard to the fact that the dispute is between the management and the employee there shall be no order as to costs. (RPV) Petition dismissed. .