ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, JYOTESH BANERJEE J. BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE instant writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 9. 8. 02 in O. A. No. 675/2002, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench whereby the learned Tribunal below dismissed an application of the petitioner made against the transfer order dated 25. 6. 02 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Kolkata to Burdwan on the same post. ( 2 ) IT transpires from the impugned order that the petitioner who was posted as Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-XI on 26. 06. 2001 and the same post has since been designated as Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata with effect from 1. 8. 2002. It was alleged that during the financial year 2001-2002, the performance of the department under the applicant's charge was very good as per the total tax collection was concerned. Despite the good performance of the applicant and the D. O. letter dated 15. 1. 2002 issued by the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes the applicant was transferred. Besides this, the applicant in the application before the Tribunal also alleged some personal difficulties in connection with his order of transfer from Kolkata to Burdwan. Before the Tribunal, the respondents opposed the claim of the applicant by alleging that the applicant had no cogent and valid ground to challenge the order of transfer, alleging further that the applicant was transferred from Kolkata to Burdwan that is to say within the same region though he completed 14 years of stay in West Bengal region, which is the maximum period of stay in a region and that the transfer in question was in the interest of administration and as per the transfer guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide its circular dated 9. 11. 99. In a rejoinder, the applicant reiterated that he was not due for transfer outside or within the region by the Central Board of Direct Taxes own standard and he should not be posted on transfer from a Metropolitan city to a nearby station. ( 3 ) IN the impugned order, the learned Tribunal considered the question whether the transfer of the applicant was in violation of D. O. letter dated 15. 1. ( 3 ) IN the impugned order, the learned Tribunal considered the question whether the transfer of the applicant was in violation of D. O. letter dated 15. 1. 02 issued by the respondent No. 3 and observed that by such D. O. letter it was disclosed that the officer who performed well would be given posting in important areas of work. The word 'area' in the D. O. letter, did not signify the geographical area, and the same was used in relation to work. At the same time, the words 'non-performer will be shifted to insignificant jobs' did not mean that the non-performer was to be shifted to the smaller place. A place might be small yet the job might be significant. On the other hand, at times, the place might be bigger even a cosmopolitan city, yet the job might be insignificant. In relation to the posting order at Burdwan, it was held that Burdwan might be smaller place than Kolkata, but it could not be said that the applicant had been shifted to insignificant job, because the job was the same. The Tribunal also considered the question of transfer in relation to the guidelines issued for the purpose of transfer, the officers of the department came to a firm finding that by such transfer, guidelines were not violated. The learned Tribunal below here specially considered the para 17 of the guidelines which stated that the officers at the level of Commissioner of Income Tax could not be posted on transfer from a metropolitan city to a nearby station. The learned Tribunal reading the same even with paragraph 5 of the said guidelines came to a clear finding that there was inconsistency in the guidelines. In any case it was observed that the guidelines were of directory nature. They were not statutory provisions. So even the transfer order was in violation of some of the guidelines it could not be quashed. Relying on certain decisions of the Supreme Court the learned Tribunal comes to an ultimate finding that there could not be any justification for the Tribunal to interfere in the order of transfer in the instant case. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the writ application. Relying on certain decisions of the Supreme Court the learned Tribunal comes to an ultimate finding that there could not be any justification for the Tribunal to interfere in the order of transfer in the instant case. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the writ application. It is alleged in the petition that during the financial year, 2001-2002 the performance of the department under the petitioner's charge was very good and the total collection (net) of taxes during the said financial a year was Rs. 20. 78 cores against the targeted figure of Rs. 23. 78 cores allocated to the said charge by the respondent No. 2, Central Board of Direct Taxes. This worked out to about 88% of the budget fixed. It is further alleged that 15th January, 2002 a D. O. letter bearing F. No. 191/cbdt/02 was issued by the respondent No. 3 informing all concerned that it had been decided by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that whoever performed well and showed results expected of him would be rewarded of posting in important area of work and non-performers would be shifted to insignificant job and this criteria would be put into effect during the annual general transfer to be effected in the next financial year, that is, the financial year 2002-2003 and in this way, the petitioner has relied on the D. O. letter marked annexure P-2 to the petition. But inspite of this, the petitioner found that through the order No. 85 of 2002 dated 25th June 2002 passed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was transferred within one year of his joining the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XI, Kolkata to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, Burdwan. ( 5 ) THE copy of the transfer order has been made annexure P-3 to the petition. ( 5 ) THE copy of the transfer order has been made annexure P-3 to the petition. It is alleged that in spite of above stated good performance of the petitioner in the present post during the financial year 2001-2002 he had been purported to be transferred by the impugned order from Kolkata to Burdwan, an obviously 'insignificant' posting as compared to the present posting, no change was effected in case of other Commissioners of Income Tax in the Kolkata area whose performances were much inferior to that of the petitioner and who were in fact 'non-performers' within the meaning of D. O. letter annexure P-2. It is further alleged that the petitioner by letter dated 26th June 2002 represented to the respondents 2 and 3 against the transfer order, requested the authorities for cancellation of the said purported order of transfer and retention of the petitioner any where in Kolkata in any suitable post and in the said representation, the petitioner also drew the attention of the respondent No. 3 regarding his personal difficulties like education of children, difficulty arising out of ailment of his very old father. It is the further allegation that although the petitioner completed more than 14 years stay in West Bengal yet there are as many as 9 (nine) officers in the rank of Commissioner who have completed more than 14 years stay in Kolkata region and have been left untouched by the impugned order of transfer although their performance has been inferior to that of the petitioner. ( 6 ) NOW, through the instant petition, the petitioner has wanted to challenge the order of the Tribunal mainly on the ground on non-consideration of material facts and non-application of the mind. Through a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has given instances where some officers like Sri John Turkey who was posted from Commissioner of Income Tax, Asansol to Commissioner of Income Tax (A) Shillong was brought back to Asansol within a very sort time and the same thing happened to Sri T. K. Chatterjee, Commissioner of Income Tax-XVI, Kolkata was posted at Asansol in place of Sri John Turkey and brought back to Kolkata. It is the further allegation that those two officers actually never relinquished their old charge and the posting orders, and subsequent transfer order were all on papers. It is the further allegation that those two officers actually never relinquished their old charge and the posting orders, and subsequent transfer order were all on papers. The petitioner has also given similar instances of some other officers who were brought back to old station of posting within a short period. By an affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent authorities have alleged that the petitioner has been transferred purely on administrative grounds and as such he cannot cite examples of other officers as the case of each officer is considered separately before issuing an order of transfer. Regarding the allegation touching the question of Sri John Turkey, it has been alleged that he was transferred to Shillong and re-transferred to Asansol on compassionate ground as he was due to retire from services on 30. 11. 2004. Similarly, Sri T. K. Chatterjee who was transferred back to Kolkata on compassionate ground on the basis of his request as his wife was suffering from ortho arthritis. It is further alleged that out of his entire service career of 27½ years in the Indian Revenue Service he was posted in Kolkata for nearly 21 years. ( 7 ) THE only question for our consideration here is whether the impugned order should be interfered with or not? ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner has mainly challenged the order of transfer to Burdwan from Kolkata on the basis of D. O. letter dated 15. 1. 2002 annexure P-2 to the petition whereby the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi informed the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata that the officers at field formations should bear in mind that their performance in this area would constitute the most vital input for the end of the year appraisal of the performance. Such letter disclosed that it was decided that whoever performed well and showed result expected from him would be rewarded with the posting in important area of work while non-performer would be shifted to insignificant jobs. It is the specific case of the petitioner that for that specific period, on the basis of the total tax collection from the area under his control, he should not be levelled as non-performer and therefore through the transfer order impugned could not be shifted to insignificant job like that of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Burdwan. It is the specific case of the petitioner that for that specific period, on the basis of the total tax collection from the area under his control, he should not be levelled as non-performer and therefore through the transfer order impugned could not be shifted to insignificant job like that of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Burdwan. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to annexure P-4 containing a chart of the specific performance of the officers in the rank of Commissioner of Income Tax regarding target tax collection, achievement and percentage of what has been achieved through such collection. Such document goes to show that the petitioner achieved 87. 60% of the target tax collection in the area which is better achievement than many of the officers similarly posted. It is alleged that those officers who achievement was less than the achievement attained by the petitioner, remain undisturbed whereas the petitioner is transferred to Burdwan. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Officers of filed formation have not been defined. But he has referred us to certain section of Income Tax Act which would give an impression that Commissioner of Income Tax is included in the officers of field formation. The learned counsel for the respondent authorities on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred not on the basis of non-performance but on the basis of his long stay in Kolkata. In this connection, the learned counsel has shown us the relevant files maintained by the department. On going through the relevant portion of the files, it is found that the transfer proposals in the grade of Commissioner of Income Tax was made on stay basis, on performance basis, on the basis of certain other circumstances noted in the file and so far the case of the petitioner is concerned, the transfer order has been made on stay basis. From the history of posting and the period for which the petitioner is posted in a particular station, it is found that after his training period he was first posted to Calcutta (now Kolkata) as I. T. O. , Class-1 from 19. 11. 76. Thereafter he was posted to New Delhi in the rank of Assistant Director/under Secretary for a period less than one year. Again he was posted in Kolkata from 6. 9. 84 to 31. 5. 11. 76. Thereafter he was posted to New Delhi in the rank of Assistant Director/under Secretary for a period less than one year. Again he was posted in Kolkata from 6. 9. 84 to 31. 5. 93 as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Thereafter he was posted at Madras (Chennai) for less than two years from 3. 6. 93 to 1. 5. 95, in the rank of Deputy Director of Income Tax. Then for a period of l7 months from 3. 5. 95 to 12. 12. 95 he was posted at New Delhi as Director, Ministry of Finance and since 20. 12. 95 till date he has been working in Kolkata first as Additional Commissioner and since 15. 9. 97 as Commissioner of Income Tax. In this way, it is found that during his service period, he remained posted in Kolkata for most of the time. Now the petitioner has raised objection regarding transfer also on the ground that some of the similarly placed officers, in spite of their long tenure in Kolkata or some other place where not transferred. Secondly, for his personal difficulties due to the old age of his father and education of his children. So far the second objection is concerned, it is to be noted that Burdwan is not a far off place. So, the difficulties alleged in the petition are not the difficulties in real sense as the petitioner can take care of those difficulties from a place like Burdwan. Having regard to that, at the time of advancing his argument the learned counsel has not laid stress on the grievance relating to that point. In para 10 of the petition, the petitioner has admitted that he has completed more than 14 years stay in West Bengal. It should be stated that in spite of admitted long stay in Kolkata, the grievance of the petitioner is that there are as many as 9 officers of the rank of Commissioner who have completed more than 14 years stay in West Bengal region even left untouched and in the said paragraph at page 7 of the petition, the petitioner has given list of 9 officers who inspite of completion of their tenure in West Bengal zone were not transfer like the petitioner. It is well settled that the Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of an officer on administrative grounds like stay in a particular place for a considerable period of time. Unless such transfer is shown to be an outcome of the mala fide exercise of the power or violative of any statutory provision. In a recent decision of the apex Court in the case of National Hydroelectric Power v. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash reported in (2001)8 SCC 574 in para 5, the apex Court has observed as follows on the question of transfer of an employee:unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management, as against such orders passed on the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. ( 9 ) IN another case decided by the apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and Ors. , reported in (2001)5 SCC 508 , the apex Court has made the following observation, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the question at issue:an order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities who issued the order, had not the competence and powers ( 10 ) IN the case of Union of India and Ors. v. S. L. Abbas, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 , in para 7 the following observation has been made by the Hon'ble Court, which is relevant here: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 interferer with it. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interferer with it. ( 11 ) IN the last portion of paragraph 9 of the same judgment, the apex Court even observed that mere guidelines would not create any right in favour of any party and the relevant proton runs as follows:no doubt, the guideline requires the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. ( 12 ) IN the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. S. S. Kourav and Ors. , reported in AIR 1955 SC 1056:the apex Court reiterated the settled principle that the Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forum to decide on transfer of officers of administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunal 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 decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid allegation in the light of the observation of the apex Court in different cases, as noted above, it is explicit that the petitioner cannot resist his transfer order only because some other officers of his rank were not transferred in spite of their long stay in 'west Bengal zone'. ( 14 ) IN the facts and circumstances, as disclosed above it is evident that the petition has got no merit as the petitioner has failed to show that the transfer order impugned is tainted with mala fide or it is due to some extraneous consideration. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. No costs. A. Chakraborti, J.- I agree. Application dismisseD