U.L. Bhat, C. J. — Petitioner and fourth respondent are Executive Engineers in the Public Works Department, Assam. Fourth respondent was on long leave. Petitioner has been working at Silchar since and of 1991. By Annexure V order dated 11.3.1993 fourth respondent on expiry of leave has been posted at Silchar vice petitioner, who is transferred and posted as Executive Engineer (Mechanical), office of the Chief Engineer, PWD, Assam at Guwahati. This order is being challenged. 2. Learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition came up passed an interim order staying the operation of transfer order. Fourth respondent filed an application for vacating the interim order. Learned Single Judge declined to vacate the order. Fourth respondent thereupon filed Writ Appeal No. 99 of 1993 and when the writ appeal came up for consideration it was suggested at the Bar that we could dispose of the writ petition itself. All the parties agreed to the suggestion. That is how the writ petition has come before us. 3. Petitioner joined service as Assistant Engineer in 1970. He worked at Tezpur till about the end of 1974 when he was transferred to Silchar as Sub-Divisional Officer (Mechanical). He worked in Silchar for about nine years and in October, 1983 was transferred to Nagaon and in his place fourth respondent was posted. On 31.10.1986 petitioner on promotion as Executive Engineer was posted at Nagaon itself. On 10.10.1988 he was transferred to Abhayapuri. On 15.11.1991 be was transferred to Silchar and in his place fourth respondent was posted. It appears that there was some difficulty in taking over charge from fourth respondent and petitioner assumed charge unilate­rally ob the direction of the Government on 11.12.1991. Fourth respondent joined at Abhayapuri on 21.12.1991 and went on leave with effect from 1.1.1992. Leave was extended for over 14 months at the end of which when he was to rejoin, he was posted at Silchar and petitioner was transferred from Silchar to Guwahati by Annexure V order, here is no dispute that fourth respondent has been working as Executive Engineer continuously at Silchar from October, 1983 for over eight years consecutively till December, 1991. Petitioner has worked for about eight years and odd continuously as Assistant Engineer at Silchar till October, 1983. It appears petitioner belongs to Silchar while fourth respondent's father-in-law belongs to Silchar. 4. Petitioner has worked for about eight years and odd continuously as Assistant Engineer at Silchar till October, 1983. It appears petitioner belongs to Silchar while fourth respondent's father-in-law belongs to Silchar. 4. By Annexure VIII Memorandum dated 10.12.1984 State Government prescribed certain guidelines for transfer of all Government Officers and staff. The relevant guidelines are : (i) Officers should be transferred upon completion of three years of service at one place or table. (ii) In any exceptional case where transfer order is made before completion of three years, reasons for such transfer should be recorded in writing. (iii) Transfer should, on normal occasions, be effected in such a manner that the academic session of the children of the transferred employee is not wasted. The Memorandum has been reiterated by Annexure IX Memorandum dated 25.2.1991 and Annexure X Memorandum dated 19.9.1992. The last mentioned Memorandum further requires that whenever public interest demands that an officer should be transferred from his place of posting even before completion of three years in the place, proper justification and grounds may be recorded in writing for the transfer and order issued only after getting approval of the Chief Minister for such transfer. 5. According to petitioner the transfer is in violation of the above guide­lines. He took charge at Silchar only on 11.12.1991 and he is now being transferred on completion of only one year and four months. The transfer is also in the middle of the academic session. He has a son studying in 7th standard and a daughter studying in Nursery class. Chief Minister's previous approval has not been obtained. It is also alleged in the petition that peti­tioner's wife is seriously ill with acute spinal complications and is under treatment at Silchar Medical College Hospital and there is no other adult member in the family to look after her. It is further alleged that transfer has not been effected in administrative exigency or public interest, but only to oblige fourth respondent and on his pressure. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner he stated that fourth respondent had approached the Union Minister of State for Steel, who intervened with the Chief Minister and the Minister in-charge of PWD to accommodate fourth respondent at Silchar. Petitioner further alleged that fourth respondent has been deliberately taking leave with a view to see that he gets a posting at Silchar. Petitioner further alleged that fourth respondent has been deliberately taking leave with a view to see that he gets a posting at Silchar. Fourth respondent in his counter affidavit has stated that he was granted leave originally on account of serious illness of his wife and subsequently of his own illness and he has not defied any transfer order. In November, 1991 he was transferred to Abhayapuri in the place of the petitioner and on account of his wife's illness, he had to go on leave. On 28.5.1992 he was transferred to Nalbari, but he could not join there. On 6.1.1993 he was transferred to Tezpur, but this transfer was stayed and therefore he could not join there. He denied also having exerted any political pressure on the authorities. 6. It is an accepted principle that transfer is an incident of public service and an implied condition of service. The appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter of effecting transfer in the exigencies of administration and in public interest. The personal problems of an individual officer are secondary to public interest. The authority concerned is ordinarily regarded as the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of the employees. But this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reason­ably and in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive, it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers can be regarded as mala fide. If a transfer is made to accommodate any person for undisclosed reasons, that also can be challenged as mala fide. In other words, administrative actions should be just and fair. Courts have always deprecated frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers, which can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to a Government servant, disrupt the education of his chi­ldren and lead to numerous other complications and problems. However, Government should have a policy of transfer which is reasonable and fair and the policy should be scrupulously adhered to. In the ultimate analysis, administrative exigencies and public interest must guide transfers. When a Government servant is transferred, it is his duty to carry out the order of transfer unless it is stayed, modified or cancelled by the appropriate authority. In the ultimate analysis, administrative exigencies and public interest must guide transfers. When a Government servant is transferred, it is his duty to carry out the order of transfer unless it is stayed, modified or cancelled by the appropriate authority. He has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of some personal difficulty. Courts do not ordinarily interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer order is made in violation of any statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. When a Court is approached for relief, ordinarily the Court would refer the party to the higher authorities for redress. See EP Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 ; B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955 ; Gujarat Electricity vs. AS Poshani, (1989) 2 SCC 602 ; Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, (1991) Suppl (2) SCC 659; and Nurul Amin vs. State of Assam & others, 1992 (2) GLJ 207. 7."We do not think the above principles have been in any way modified by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India & another, AIR 1993 SC 1236 , as is contended by learned counsel for the fourth respondent. In that case the Court held that the allegations of mala fides have not been made out and declined to grant relief allowing the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authority about his personal diffi­culties. The Supreme Court made it clear that a transfer order is not liable to be struck down merely because it causes difficulties to the concerned employee. The Court should not interfere with the order to transfer unless it is based on mala fide or is made in violation of the rules of service and guidelines without any proper justification. The reference to guidelines in this decision cannot be taken as laying down a principle that whenever guidelines are violated the Court can or should interfere. Where guidelines are issued by Executive instructions, they are only to guide the authority vested with the power of transfer. Mere violation of guidelines cannot be a justification for interference without mala fides being shown. 8. Learned Government Advocate has placed the note file before us. Where guidelines are issued by Executive instructions, they are only to guide the authority vested with the power of transfer. Mere violation of guidelines cannot be a justification for interference without mala fides being shown. 8. Learned Government Advocate has placed the note file before us. The matter came before the concerned authority in view of the fact that the leave granted to fourth respondent was about to expire. The departmental officer noted that fourth respondent has to be given a posting. There has all along been a vacancy of Executive Engineer (Mechanical) in the office of the Chief Engineer, at Guwahati. Pages 52 and 53 of the note file contain the recommendation to post him in that vacancy. It is also noted that fourth respondent worked in Silchar for a long period before his transfer to Abhayapuri and the present incumbent at Silchar has been working at Silchar only since 11.12,1991. The note does not indicate why reference was made to the petitioner the incumbent at Silchar. Obviously, there was some verbal suggestion to the officer who prepared the note. It is not disclosed who made the verbal suggestion of a possible posting of fourth respondent to Silchar. The fact remains that it was specifically brought to the notice of the authority concerned that fourth respondent has worked at Silchar as Executive Engineer for a long period before his transfer to Abhayapuri and ;he petitioner has been working there only since 11.12.1991. 9. This note was followed by a minute of the Minister, PWD to the Chief Minister. It refers to the alleged instructions given by the Chief Minister without disclosing the contents of the instructions. It also refers to the earlier mentioned note. The minute also states : "..As the present incumbent of Silchar Mechanical Division has only completed one year and two months, your approval is sought for posting of Shri Dutta (fourth respondent) at Silchar Mechanical Division." 10. The Chief Minister, who is alleged in the minute to have given some undisclosed instructions, did not grant his approval but required the Minister to take a decision. This was followed by the order passed by the Minister approving his own earlier proposal to post fourth respondent at Silchar in place of the petitioner on the ground that: "In view of present circumstances and the personal difficulties being faced by Shri Dutta for children education." 11. This was followed by the order passed by the Minister approving his own earlier proposal to post fourth respondent at Silchar in place of the petitioner on the ground that: "In view of present circumstances and the personal difficulties being faced by Shri Dutta for children education." 11. Fourth respondent has no case that he gave a Written representation to the Chief Minister or the Minister or the Department pointing out any personal difficulties. The note file does not indicate how the Minister or any other authority came to know of the difficulties of the fourth respondent. The note file shows that the petitioner's transfer was not effected either in the exigencies of administration or in public interest and that it was effected only to help the fourth respondent to tide over his personal difficulties regarding children's education and without considering the difficulties which the petitioner may have. 12. Non-disturbance for a period of three years at a place or table and non-disturbance during the middle of the academic session is the normal rule. This is always subject to exigencies of administration and public interest. The impugned transfer purports to be in public interest; but the records show that it was really not effected in public interest. It was effected for the private interest of the fourth respondent and without considering the interest of the petitioner. The broad guidelines laid down by the Government can of course be departed from in individual cases in public interest: but the departure made in this case was not in public interest; but in the interest of an indivi­dual officer and without considering the interest of the other officer effected. In these circumstances, the irritable conclusion is that the petitioner was transferred for extraneous reasons and the transfer is not bona fide or reaso­nable and is not justified by sufficient reason. In other words, the transfer is mala fide. In these circumstances we refrain from adopting the normal procedure of directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal. We do not say that a Minister cannot suggest or order a transfer. But ordinarily he should leave it to the departmental authority to work out transfers and refrain from interfering. In other words, the transfer is mala fide. In these circumstances we refrain from adopting the normal procedure of directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal. We do not say that a Minister cannot suggest or order a transfer. But ordinarily he should leave it to the departmental authority to work out transfers and refrain from interfering. His interference would be justified only in public interest or in the exigency of administration or where it is brought to his notice that as between two officers transfer of a particular officer to a particular station is absolutely necessary in view of the officer's particular circumstances bearing in mind that an officer functioning under great personal stress will not be able to discharge his functions in the best possible manner. 13. We find the impugned order is vitiated and strike it down. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The State Government will naturally give a posting to fourth respondent.