JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners in the instant writ petition have assailed the order dated March 6, 2000 whereby they have been transferred from Jaipur to Delhi. 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners are husband and wife respectively aged 58 and 57 years and presently working as Assistant Directors in the office of the respondents, but without there being any justification or exigencies of service the respondents have transferred them from Jaipur to Delhi vide a common order dated March 6, 2000 in violation of the transfer policy. As their cause of grievance is common, the petitioners have filed a joint writ petition. 3. The respondents have submitted reply to the writ petition stating therein that the transfer of the petitioners is fully justified and no violation of any transfer policy has been made by the answering respondents. The respondents had received various complaints against the petitioners including the complaint of the Member of Parliament Shri Girdhari Lai Bhargava on 26th Feb. 1999 as well as a complaint by Dr. Hari Narain Swami who is Member of the Governing Body. On these complaints comments were asked from the petitioners but no satisfactory reply had been received by the respondents in this regard. The respondents had also received complaints against the petitioners that some unauthorised STD telephone calls were made by the petitioners on various dates. These STD calls were personal calls of the petitioners and were not made for the purpose of institute. The petitioners also misused the official vehicle for their personal use though they were availing र 800/- per month each as transportation allowance. Irregularities were also found in purchase of articles and goods for the institute by the petitioners. The Chief Vigilance Officer came to Jaipur and after inquiry against the petitioners he had also reported that activities of the petitioners were not in favour of the institute and detrimental to the interests of the institute. The Joint Secretary, Indian System of Medicines, Ministery of Health, Government of India had also visited the institute in the month of January 2000 and he had also reported about the irregular activities of the petitioners. The Joint Secretary, Indian System of Medicines, Ministery of Health, Government of India had also visited the institute in the month of January 2000 and he had also reported about the irregular activities of the petitioners. The functioning of the Central Research Institute of Ayurveda and Siddha was also discussed in the Governing Body of the Central Council and in the meeting held on 7th January, 2000 it was observed that the institute is not functioning even up to the satisfactory level. The transfer order was made because all the record, material and other things are in custody and possession of the petitioners as they are senior most officers at Jaipur. To keep the record intact so that in a preliminary enquiry the evidence may not be tarnished the petitioners have been transferred from Jaipur to Delhi.In rejoinder the petitioners denied the allegations made in the reply to the writ petition with regard to the petitioners. Along with the rejoinder the petitioners have submitted reply to the complaint of Dr. Hari Narain Swami, Member Governing Body, wherein it has been stated that though the functioning of RRI (Ay.) Jaipur has not been at the desired level but all the allegations made by Dr. Swami are not correct. But at page No.2 of the said letter in the endorsement it has been mentioned with reference to letter dated 22.5.99 that the reply furnished by her to the points raised by Dr. Swami Member, G.B. CCRAS have not been found satisfactory. No reply/comments relating to admission of old age persons for months together who do not come under the research categories and who only need health care during the old age has been furnished. Further no reply has also been furnished in regard to admission of same persons again and again after a gap of 15-20 days. She is therefore directed to look into the complaint of Dr. H.N. Swami once again and submit details and suitable reply on each point together with supported documents within 15 days positively. It has also been stated in the rejoinder that the transfer order in no manner can be said to be administrative action or in the interest of the administration but just to harass the petitioners at the age of 57 and 58 years they have been sent to Delhi. 4. It has also been stated in the rejoinder that the transfer order in no manner can be said to be administrative action or in the interest of the administration but just to harass the petitioners at the age of 57 and 58 years they have been sent to Delhi. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. 5. Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that the transfer policy framed by the respondents ought to have been followed in letter and spirit. It was contended that as per clause 1 of the transfer policy no officer should be transferred before completion of 5 years on one post at one place of posting subject to exigencies of work and administrative convenience and except the individuals request for mutual transfer. Clause 4 of the transfer policy makes a clear bar that those officers who have crossed 55/58 years (on technical and non-technical posts) they shall not be transferred except their own requests or in cases of disciplinary actions. As the petitioners were transferred from Jaipur vide order dated October 13, 1995 and in pursuance to that order they joined as Assistant Director on October 16, 1995 and they also crossed 55/58 years of age, they ought not have been transferred by the impugned order. Reliance was placed on (1) B.S. Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute and others (1983 (3) SLR 150) and (2) Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1991 SC 532 ) .Supporting the impugned order Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that this court should not interfere with the impugned transfer order as it has been made for administrative reasons. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Bajpai, on Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs. State of Bihar (supra), (3) Bank of India vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta (AIR 1992 SC 519) and (4) State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others ( AIR 1995 SC 1056 ) . 6. This court is not an appellate forum to decide the transfer matters of officers transferred on administrative grounds. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mrs. 6. This court is not an appellate forum to decide the transfer matters of officers transferred on administrative grounds. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others (supra) indicated 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. 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. 7. I have closely scrutinised the writ petition as well as the documents annexed with it. It does not appear that the petitioners have been transferred on the ground of malafide. The only contention of the petitioners is that clauses 1 and 4 of transfer policy has been flouted as the petitioners hold technical posts and crossed 55/58 years of age and they had only joined their duties at Jaipur on the post of Assistant Director on October 16, 1995 they could not have been transferred from Jaipur to Delhi. The transfer order being illegal, arbitrary and in clear violation of statutory transfer policy it deserves to be quashed. Though in para 'C' of grounds the petitioners have averred that person junior to the petitioners Dr. R.P. Cheepa, who is working as Research Officer has been asked to take over the charge, which shows that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioners is malafide and by this indirect method the respondents intended to dislodge the petitioners from their present station particularly at the stage when they have already crossed more than 58/57 years of age and they are going to retire in 2002 and 2003, but it is difficult to agree with this contention. If a direction is given to hand over charge to a particular person, it cannot be termed as malafide direction. The petitioners hold transferable posts and they have no vested right to remain posted at one particular place. The impugned transfer order which has been issued by the competent authority does not violate any of the legal rights of the petitioners. The petitioners hold transferable posts and they have no vested right to remain posted at one particular place. The impugned transfer order which has been issued by the competent authority does not violate any of the legal rights of the petitioners. Even if transfer policy is not followed in letter and spirit then also the petitioners have to establish malafides on the part of the person who issued the transfer order. 8. In State of M.P. and another Vs. S.S. Kourav and others (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that the wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decision shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In the instant case the petitioners have failed to make out a case of malafide. 9. The transfer policy framed by the respondents are executive instructions and it does not come in the purview of mandatory statutory rules. The case of B.S. Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute and others (supra) cited by Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable. In the cited case it was held that compliance with the bye-laws seems to be necessary in the name of fair play. The grievance of the petitioner in that case was that he was not considered for appointment to the post of Director, although he was far superior to the respondent No.4 of that case. It was held that it was a case of breach of bye-laws in making appointment of the respondent No.4. The ratio of B.S. Minhas's case (supra) is not applicable in the instant petition. This is not a case of appointment on the basis of bye-laws. Here the petitioners have attempted to establish that they have been transferred in violation of the transfer policy. As said before the transfer policy framed by the respondents comes in the definition of executive instructions and unless cialafides on the part of respondents are shown the transfer order cannot be interfered with as is held in Mrs. Shilpi Bose case (supra) by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. As said before the transfer policy framed by the respondents comes in the definition of executive instructions and unless cialafides on the part of respondents are shown the transfer order cannot be interfered with as is held in Mrs. Shilpi Bose case (supra) by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The petitioners have also failed to establish the inconvenience caused to them in going to Delhi from Jaipur. A look at the reply submitted by the respondents demonstrates that Dr. R.P. Cheepa is next in the hierarchy at Jaipur and if superior officer is going to be relieved, charge is delivered to the person, who is next in the hierarchy. 10. In view of what I have discussed here in above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.Petition Dismissed *******