JUDGMENT : S.N. Phukan, C.J. - As common questions of law and act are involved in all these 21 writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Opp. party No. 1, United Bank of India (hereinafter called "the Bank") has transferred 32 of its officers to outside the State of Orissa. But of these 32 officers, 21 have filed the above writ petitions challenging their orders of transfer, vide Annexure-1 to the writ petitions, on the ground that the said orders are contrary to the Guidelines for Posting and Transfer/Placement for officers framed by the Bank, which is annexed as Annexure-2, to the writ petitions. The transfer orders being similar, we may refer to the facts in O. J. C. No. 8779 of 1997. 3. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that the United Bank of India Officers' Association Central Council have approved the guidelines and, therefore, the parties are expected to adhere to the said guidelines. The minutes of discussions between the representatives of the Officers' Association and the management of the Bank is at Annexure-3. It has been further pleaded that the above officers have been transferred outside the State in order to create artificial vacancies to accommodate favourable officers of the Bank who are now serving outside the State. From the pleadings of the petitioner, we find that plea of mala fide intention to accommodate favourable officers serving outside the State has also been taken as a ground. Therefore, it has been alleged that the impugned transfer orders are illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Bank. Personal reasons which would put the petitioners into inconvenience consequent upon their transfer to outside the State of Orissa have also been pleaded. 4. In the counter affidavits and additional affidavits filed on behalf of the Bank and sworn to by the Chief Manager of the Bank's Orissa Region, the pleas of mala fide, illegality and arbitrariness have been denied. A plea has been taken that all the transfer orders have been issued by the opposite party-Bank in public interest and on administrative reasons. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the said transfer orders. It has also been stated that 32 officers, who are serving outside the State, are being repatriated and consequently 32 officers are being transferred outside the State. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with the said transfer orders. It has also been stated that 32 officers, who are serving outside the State, are being repatriated and consequently 32 officers are being transferred outside the State. Out of the above 32 officers, transfers orders in respect of two have been kept in abeyance on medical ground and 21 officers have filed the present writ petitions and in respect of other officers, transfer orders have already been effected. The details of the officers, who are coming on transfer on repatriation, and those, who have been transferred outside the State, have been shown in the lists annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank on 5.9.1997. Reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 9.9.1997. We shall refer to Annexure-7, which is a seniority list of officers belonging to the Bank as on 31.3.1997. We shall also refer to Annexure-4, to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank on 5.9.1997 wherein reasons have been indicated as to why the officers junior to the petitioners have not been transferred outside the State. 5. Heard Shri R.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri J. Patnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 6. The scope of judicial review of transfer of public servants is absolutely clear in view of the series of decisions rendered by the Apex Court. 7. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others the Apex Court, inter alia, held that where a competent authority issues transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered with by the Court merely because the transfer orders were passed on the request of the employees concerned. It was further held that the Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. It was also held that transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights and even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. The Apex Court in Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another held as follows : "After considering the respective contentions of the parties, it appears to us that the appellant has not been able to substantiate that the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide against him for an oblique purpose and/or for wrecking vengeance against him because the respondent No. 2 was anxious to get rid of him and he seized the opportunity of transferring him from Delhi to Calcutta by transferring Shri Patra back, to Orissa from Calcutta. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. We are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal that the appellant has not been able to lay any firm foundation to substantiate the case of malice or mala fide against the respondents in passing the impugned order of transfer. It does not appear to us that the appellant has been moved out just to get rid of him and the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide by seizing an opportunity to transfer Shri Patra to Orissa from Calcutta. It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a straight-cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a straight-cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions. In this case, we are unable to draw any inference of mala fide action in transferring the appellant from the facts pleaded before the Tribunal. It appears that Shri Patra was transferred to Calcutta and after joining the post he had made representation on account of personal hardship. Such representation was considered and a decision was taken to transfer him back to Orissa region. As a result, a necessity arose to transfer an employee to Calcutta to replace Shri Patra. It cannot be reasonably contended by the appellant that he should have been spared and some one else would have been transferred. The appellant has not made any representation about the personal hardship to the department. As such there was no occasion for the department to consider such representation. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but we make no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the appellant will be free to make representation to the concerned department about personal hardship, if any, being suffered by the appellant in view of the impugned order. It is reasonably expected that if such representation is made, the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable." In Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas, the Apex Court also considered the scope of interference by the Courts with transfer and we quote below the observations made at paragraphs 7 and 10 of the judgment :- "7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it, While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right." "10. The said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the Respondent's contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any, of the administrative instructions/guidelines are not followed, much less can it be characterised as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions." In State of Punjab and others Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt it was held that the Apex Court had time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. It was also held that ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. In Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas the Apex Court held that employee holding transferable posts have no vested right to remain in the original circle in the Department of Telecommunication of Government of India. In State of Madhya Pradesh, and Another Vs. S.S. Kourav and Others the Apex Court held that the Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds and the wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. S.S. Kourav and Others the Apex Court held that the Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds and the wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It was also held that it is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. When transfer order is issued on administrative grounds, the Court cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place. 8. We may now summarise the law as follows : (i) Transfer being an incidence of service should not be interfered with by the Courts or Tribunals unless it is made mala fide, arbitrarily or in violation of any statutory law. (ii) Administrative instructions cannot confer any right on an employee to oppose transfer. (iii) Order of transfer can be interfered with if it is in violation of any statutory provisions, but while ordering the transfer, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government or proper authority on the subject. (iv) If any representation is made by an employee in respect of his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigency of transfer. 9. In this connection, we may quote below the relevant portions of the Guidelines for Posting and Transfer/Placement for Officers, annexed as Annexure-2 to the memorandum dated 3.9.1997 filed by the opposite party-Bank: "2. (a) These guidelines shall not apply to officers in Scale-IV and above in whose case management will be generally guided by the considerations about the suitability of the Officers for a particular post, Bank's requirements for these category of Officers and other exigencies." "5. The first/initial posting of a directly recruited officer or of a clerk promoted to officers' cadre will generally be in a rural branch. Where adequate number of such rural branches having appro-priate vacancies arc not available, such posting or placement may involve a change in State or circle as also change from Rural to Semi-urban/Urban branches". "7. The first/initial posting of a directly recruited officer or of a clerk promoted to officers' cadre will generally be in a rural branch. Where adequate number of such rural branches having appro-priate vacancies arc not available, such posting or placement may involve a change in State or circle as also change from Rural to Semi-urban/Urban branches". "7. The promotee officers, and directly recruited officers, who are placed/posted outside a particular revenue state/ circle in terms of para -5 above, will generally be required to serve in such outside state/circle at least for 3 years in case of promotee officers and 5 years in case of directly recruited officers. Such officers will be transferred back after the aforesaid prescribed periods to the revenue state/circle from where they were promoted to the officers' cadre in case of promotee officers or in which their home towns are situated in case of directly recruited officers subject to availability of vacancies and provided that there is no prayer/request to the contrary from the concerned officers. The basis of selecting officers for transferring them back to their respective state/circle will be their duration of service in the outside state/circle and if any officer is considered for such transfer even before his completion of the aforesaid prescribed minimum period, all other officers who would have been eligible along with that officer after the expiry of that prescribed period, should also be considered simultaneously. However, in case of repatriation of officers when there will be inadequate number of officers belonging to the State from where the Officers are required to be repatriated, a Promotee or Directly recruited officer from the State to which the Officers will be repatriated, may be transferred out of his home State although there may be vacancy in such home State. For this purpose the juniormost in a batch of Promotee Officers or directly recruited Officers will be transferred out first." "25. AREAS AND RETENTION PERIODS Posts and Transfer of Officers in Scale-I, and II will be confined within the limits of a particular State/circle. Exceptions may, however, be made by the Competent Authority as, circumstances may warrant, in cases where in a particular state/circle the number of officers exceeds the number of posts in the relative scales, and/or where in a particular state/circle the number of posts in these scales exceed number of officers available in these scales". "40. Exceptions may, however, be made by the Competent Authority as, circumstances may warrant, in cases where in a particular state/circle the number of officers exceeds the number of posts in the relative scales, and/or where in a particular state/circle the number of posts in these scales exceed number of officers available in these scales". "40. Nothing in these "Transfer Posting Guidelines' shall supersede any policy, rule, regulation or statute that have been framed and are in force for the time being or that may be framed and brought into force at dates subsequent to the bringing into force these 'Transfer Posting Guidelines' and where a conflict between these Transfer Posting Guidelines' and such policy, rule, regulation or statute arises, the latter shall have precedence over the former." 10. It is not disputed that the officers involved in this batch of writ petitions belong to Scale-I. As per para 7 of the Guidelines, both promotee officers and directly recruited officers who are placed/posted outside a particular revenue State/circle in terms of para 5 thereof will generally be required to serve in such outside State/circle at least for three years in case of promotee officers and five years in case of directly recruited officers and such officers will be transferred back after the aforesaid prescribed periods to the revenue State/circle from where they were promoted to the officers' cadre in case of promotee officers or in which their home-towns are situated in case of directly recruited officers subject to availability of vacancies and provided that there is no prayer/request to the contrary from the concerned officers. This para further provides that the basis of selecting officers for transferring them back to their respective State/circle will be their duration of service in the outside State/circle and if any officer is considered for such transfer even before his completion of the aforesaid prescribed minimum period, all other officers who would have been eligible along with that officer after the expiry of that prescribed period, should also be considered simultaneously. Para 7 also provides that in case of repatriation of officers when there will be inadequate number of officers belonging to the State from where the officers are required to be repatriated, a promotee or directly recruited officer from the State to which the officers will be repatriated, may be transferred out of his home State although there maybe vacancy in such home State and for this purpose, the juniormost in a batch of promotee officers or directly recruited officers will be transferred out first. 11. From the annexure enclosed to the additional affidavit filed in O.J.C. No. 8779/97, we find that officers, who were posted outside the State from 1987 to 1990, were not at all considered by the Bank for transfer on repatriation to home State. In other words, the officers of the Bank were showing inaction and thereby they have failed to discharge their public duty for which we take exception. We direct the Chairman of the Bank to look into the matter and take appropriate action in this regard. 12. While transferring out the present petitioners and others, the persons, who are serving in the State since 1979, as would appear from the seniority list of officers as on 31.3.1997 annexed as Annexure-7 to the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 8781/97, have completely been ignored. It was possibly because the transferring authority was under mistaken impression that the juniormost officers had to be transferred. It is not so. Para 7 of the Guidelines is very clear that for the purpose, the juniormost in a batch of promotee officers or directly recruited officers will be transferred out first. Because of the inaction of the transferring authority, the officers, who are in Scale-I and are serving in the State since 1979, have not been transferred out. This is completely in disregard to the Guidelines, which as per the direction of the apex Court, have to be kept in view by the transferring authority. Similarly, the present writ petitioners and similarly situated persons who have been transferred outside the State should be brought back to this State positively within five years. Apart from that, the cases of the persons junior to the present petitioners who have not been transferred out shall be re-considered by the transferring authority within three months. Similarly, the present writ petitioners and similarly situated persons who have been transferred outside the State should be brought back to this State positively within five years. Apart from that, the cases of the persons junior to the present petitioners who have not been transferred out shall be re-considered by the transferring authority within three months. While repatriation, the officers involved in the present petitions and officers who have already joined. In view of the transfer orders, should be brought back to the State within-five years by the disturbing officers who are senior to the present petitioners in the same scale and this would be done within a period of three to five years. 13. We have passed the above directions in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court that the transferring authority must keep In mind the Guidelines issued for the purpose of transfer. 14. In view of the mandate of the Apex Court in Shilpi Bose's case (supra) out of the present petitioners it any officer has any personal problem which may cause hardship to him, he may file a representation within a week from today before the higher authority of the Bank and such representation shall be considered and disposed of within two weeks thereafter. During the above period, however, the person making such representation may not move out from his present posting. 15. The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. There shall be no cider as to costs. P.K. Tripathy, J. 16. I agree.