Judgment :- A.R. Lakshmanan, J. Heard Mr. N.N. Venkitachalam for the appellant and the learned Advocate General for the State assisted by Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader. The Writ Appeal is directed by the order in O.P. 9263/98 challenging the order of transfer of the appellant made by the first respondent. It is contended by the appellant that the transfer is the one actuated by malafides, discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. The appellant earlier filed O.P. 13125/97 challenging the order of transfer which is punitive, malafide and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. He contended that he never used any bad or abusive language against the then Superintendent and other doctors who are working there for selfish interest. This Court set aside the order of transfer and directed the second respondent to conduct an impartial enquiry against the appellant to rind out the truthfulness of the allegation. The second respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted an enquiry report. It is a case of the appellant that he was not given the enquiry report. The appellant again filed O.P. 2280/97 when he received a communication dated 18.12.1997 transferring him to Chitrapuram Public Health Centre, Idukki District. This Court admitted the Writ Petition and stayed the implementation of transfer order and directed the Superintendent-in-charge to retain the appellant in the District Hospital, Palakkad until further orders. Learned single judge of this Court disposed of O.P. 2280/97 after noticing the recommendations made by the Director of Health Services and by the Government. The learned judge has extracted the recommendations made by the Director of Health Services, Trivandrum and extracted the same in the judgment which shows that there is groupism and rivalry among the doctors of that hospital which has disrupted the smooth functioning of the institution. Therefore, he recommended that those medical officers who had completed three years of continuous service on that institution may be transferred out during next general transfer. This recommendation was made taking a lenient view not to disturb them-in the middle of the year. The learned judge has also noted that the appellant was continuing in the District Hospital, Palakkad even on the date of disposal of O.P. 2280/97 on 2.4.1998. This recommendation was made taking a lenient view not to disturb them-in the middle of the year. The learned judge has also noted that the appellant was continuing in the District Hospital, Palakkad even on the date of disposal of O.P. 2280/97 on 2.4.1998. Therefore, the learned judge under these circumstances directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the appellant for a transfer during the general transfer to be made in 1998 and to retain the appellant in the said hospital. 2. The present Original Petition has been filed by the appellant to call for the records connected with the preparation of Exts. P5 and P6 to quash the transfer order of the appellant made in Ext. P6 and to declare that the transfer of the appellant is arbitrary and actuated by personal and legal malafides and for a writ of prohibition directing the respondents not to implement the transfer order of the appellant. Ext. P5 is a circular giving details of the names of Civil Surgeons for general transfer 1998. Ext. P6 is the order dated 11.5.1998 by the Health and Family Welfare Department proposing to transfer Civil Surgeons by way of general transfers 1998. It is stated therein that the Government have examined the appeals in detail and ordered transfer and postings of the Civil Surgeons to the station noted against each. 3. Mr. Venkitachalam submitted that the appellant's name though not included in Ext. P5 was intentionally included as the last but one in the final transfer list Ext. P6. According to him, it is a malafide action as a result of pressure exerted on the Government. It is also a discriminatory act. The appellant alone is singled out. Certain other doctors have been spared by the Government though they have put in more than three years service in district hospital, and have to be transferred as per Ext. P3 issued by the Government. The appellant has also submitted that he has got personal problems and has justifiable reasons to stay at the present station. 4. Learned Judge dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that since the appellant is continuing in Palakkad for several years he did not find any justification to interfere with Ext. P6 order of transfer. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same contention which had been raised in the Original Petition and also before the learned judge. 4. Learned Judge dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that since the appellant is continuing in Palakkad for several years he did not find any justification to interfere with Ext. P6 order of transfer. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same contention which had been raised in the Original Petition and also before the learned judge. The only contention of the appellant is that the persons who had completed three years of service at Palakkad are still continuing in Palakkad and the appellant alone had been singled out for transfer. The fact that some others are still continuing in Palakkad is not a reason and cannot also be a reason for challenging the present order of transfer made under Ext. P6 which is only a general transfer for the year 1998. Though certain malafides have been alleged in the petition, the appellant has not chosen to implead the persons who are responsible for his transfer. It is a settled law that the management has got power to transfer an employee from one place to another and from one unit to another unit. Thus, the transfer of an employee is part of conditions of service and the employees are bound to obey the orders of transfer and work in the place where they have been transferred and posted. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly ruled that transferability from one establishment to another is an incident of service and that the employer is the best judge to decide upon the utilisation and distribution of its manpower, amongst various units and places. The courts have further held that courts and tribunals cannot also properly assess or adjudicate effectively the reasons given for transfer of employees. In other words, the effect of those ruling is that the decision of the employers in such cases is conclusive and that except in the rarest of rare cases, courts should not interfere with transfer. The case on hand is not one such a case. This apart no prejudice has been caused to the service condition of the appellant on account of the transfer. There is no special or distinguishing facts in the case on hand to warrant interference. The management in our opinion have made these transfers necessitated by bonafide business exigencies and to distribute available manpower to different places where the work of management is carried out. There is no special or distinguishing facts in the case on hand to warrant interference. The management in our opinion have made these transfers necessitated by bonafide business exigencies and to distribute available manpower to different places where the work of management is carried out. The assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post under the exigencies of administration. The only realistic approach as held by the apex court in many of its judgments is to leave it to the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by malafides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated. The Writ Appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. C.M.P. No. 2801/98 also stands dismissed. No costs.