JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The Petitioner who is presently posted at Dhubri as Executive Engineer in the department of Public Health Engineering is aggrieved by the Notification dated 7.10.2003 issued by the Government of Assam in the Public Health Engineering Department placing his services at the disposal of North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council for his posting as Executing Engineer, PHE, Umrangshu Division. By way of endorsing a copy of the Notification to the Respondent No. 5, Assistant Executive Engineer, PHE, Dhubri, Sub-division, Dhubri, he has been directed to take over charge of the post being held by the Petitioner temporarily in addition to his own duties till regular posting of Executive Engineer, PHE. The main grounds of attack on the impugned notification dated 7.10.2003 are as follows: (a) The Petitioner having joined at Dhubri only in May, 2003 on transfer from Guwahati, he has not completed the prescribed tenure of three years at Dhubri and thus, the transfer order could not have been issued before completion of the prescribed tenure. (b) In case of transfer of an officer even before completion of three years in one place, the requirement of obtaining approval of the Chief Minister with proper justification as per transfer guidelines issued under office memorandum dated 4.2.2002 having been dispensed with, same is violative of such transfer guidelines. (c) There being no public interest in transferring the Petitioner and the impugned notification having been issued primarily to accommodate the Respondent No. 5, the impugned order of transfer is not sustainable. (d) The impugned order of transfer being founded on the accusation made against the Petitioner on the accusation made against the Petitioner on his alleged failure to accompany the Central team who had visited Dhubri for inspection of various activities, the transfer order is liable to be interfered with. (e) The Petitioner after his joining at Dhubri being engaged in implementation of various schemes, the transfer of the Petitioner would hamper the progress of the work. (f) The prevalent practice and condition of obtaining prior approval of the North Cachar Hills Council for posting of the Petitioner having not been fulfilled, the impugned notification is liable to be interfered with. 2. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the official Respondents to which an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 5 has filed an application registered and numbered as Misc. 2. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the official Respondents to which an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 5 has filed an application registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 2447/2003 praying for recalling the interim orders passed on 22.10.2003 staying the operation of the impugned transfer order dated 7.10.2003 and the one dated 25.11.2003 passed in Misc. Case No. 2041/2003 filed by the writ Petitioner by which the Petitioner has been allowed to continue as Executive Engineer, PHE, Dhubri. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 prayed for treating the said application (Misc. Case No. 2447/2003) to be the affidavit-in-opposition in the main writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner who strenuously argued projecting the aforementioned grounds of attack against the impugned order of transfer. Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned Senior State Counsel appearing for the official Respondents supported the impugned notification. He submitted that none of the grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioner is sustainable. Placing reliance on the records produced and the affidavit-in-opposition, he submitted that necessary approval of the Chief Minister and the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council in respect of the impugned order of transfer and posting had been obtained. As regards the allegation of the transfer order being founded on certain accusations, Mr. Mahanta submitted that the same by itself will not render the order of transfer a punitive one and rather would be within the ambit of public interest and exigencies of services. 4. Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 submitted that the plea of issuance of the impugned order to accommodate the Respondent No. 5 is totally unfounded. He submitted that the impugned notification itself specifies that the direction to the Respondent No. 5 to take over charge of the post held by the Petitioner is only by way of a temporary arrangement in addition to the own duties of the Respondent No. 5 till regular posting of the executive Engineer. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also considered the materials available in records. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also considered the materials available in records. As per the transfer guideline on which the Petitioner has placed reliance, approval of the Chief Minister is required to be obtained in case of transfer of a Government servant even before completion of three years in the place with proper justification and ground to be recorded in writing. The official Respondents in their affidavit have stated that such approval has been obtained ex-post facto on 12.11.2003. I have verified the records which revealed that the matter was placed before the Chief Minister on 12.11.2003 assigning the reasons and justifying the transfer of the Petitioner from Dhubri for his posting at Umrangshu Division on the request of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council for posting of an Executive Engineer there. The reasons for inability to obtain prior approval of the Chief Minister also was specified and requested the Chief Minister for ex-post facto approval. The Chief Minister of the State accorded his approval on 12.11.2003. 6. Thus the grounds of attack under (a) and (b) above fall through. As regards the ground No. (f) of not obtaining prior approval of North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council for posting of the Petitioner, the records revealed that a request was made by the said Autonomous Council for posting of an Executive Engineer against a vacant post there. In fact the Autonomous Council made request for such posting on the ground that the Public Health Engineering Department in North Cachar Hills was not functioning smoothly and all the works remained standstill due to non-posting of officer in the department. Thus the ground (f) also does not survive. 7. The above position leads us to ground (c) i.e. there is no public interest in transferring the Petitioner and that the same has been done only to accommodate the Respondent No. 5. This ground will have a bearing with ground No. (d) as per which the transfer of the Petitioner has been resorted to on certain accusations and thus the impugned order of transfer is the result of penal action against the Petitioner. This ground will have a bearing with ground No. (d) as per which the transfer of the Petitioner has been resorted to on certain accusations and thus the impugned order of transfer is the result of penal action against the Petitioner. Referring to the charge sheet issued against the Petitioner and the reply furnished there to and the report of the Deputy Commissioner of the district alleging failure on the part of the Petitioner to carry out his responsibility on visit of the Central Team, Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that such allegations being the foundation of the impugned order of transfer, the order is punitive and liable to be interfered with. 8. I have verified the records which do not even remotely suggest any influence exerted by the Respondent No. 5 for transfer of the Petitioner. Even otherwise also, the Respondent No. 5 has been assigned only the temporary task of managing the affairs of the post of Executive Engineer held by the Petitioner till posting of a regular Executive Engineer. Such a arrangement was necessary in view of the transfer of the Petitioner and in absence of any regular posting of another Executive Engineer. The records do not suggest that the order of transfer has been issued to accommodate the Respondent No. 5. 9. The Petitioner has been transferred primarily on ground of his non performance and his attitude and lack of sense of responsibility at the time of visit of the Central Team. The Respondents in their affidavit have made their position known in this regard. They have highlighted in the affidavit as to how the Government viewed lapse on the part of the Petitioner seriously and as to how it was unfortunate to have expressed dissatisfaction by the Central Team for non cooperation of the Petitioner. 10. The question for consideration is as to whether the dissatisfaction on the particular act of the Petitioner during the visit of the Central Team coupled with grounds specified in the affidavit that the Petitioner did not show interest in implementation of the scheme under his Division can justify the transfer of the Petitioner from the place of posting. 11. Needless to say that transfer is an incident of service. The Government is to run the administration and is in a better position to decide when and where an employee is to be posted. 11. Needless to say that transfer is an incident of service. The Government is to run the administration and is in a better position to decide when and where an employee is to be posted. Assessment of work must be left to the bonafide decision of the superior in service and the honest assessment must be accepted as a part of service discipline. Such assessment is to be made taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for the particular post and exigencies of the administration. Realistic approach of the Court will be to leave it to be wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make the decision. There are no judicially manageable standard for scrutinizing orders of transfer and the Courts lack the necessary experience of personnel management of the Government Department. 12. In the instant case, admittedly the Petitioner has been transferred on ground of his unsatisfactory performance, lack of responsibility etc. It is on record that no enquiry as such was conducted so as to term the same to be the foundation. The Respondents at the helm of affairs scrutinized the materials available on records and arrived at the decision to transfer the Petitioner from Dhubri and placing his service at the disposal of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council as per the request made by the council for appropriate posting of an officer. No fault can be attributed to such an action on the part of the Respondents. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Janardhan Devnath as reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245 dealing with the transfer on the ground that the employee concerned was "undesirable" as he had misbehaved and as to whether the same was to be preceded by departmental enquiry held that such transfer unless adversely affected any service conditions status, service prospects or leads to any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to the same type of screening, approach assessment as in the case of dismissal etc. It held that prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned based on contemporary reports is sufficient. It further observed that utmost latitude should be given to the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service. In the said case the apex Court concluded as follows: 12. It held that prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned based on contemporary reports is sufficient. It further observed that utmost latitude should be given to the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service. In the said case the apex Court concluded as follows: 12. The manner, nature and extent of exercise to be undertaken by Court/tribunals in a case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma or constitutes one by way of punishment would also very much depend upon the consequences flowing from the order and as to whether it adversely affects any service conditions status, service prospects financially and the same yardstick, norms or standards cannot be applied to all categories of cases. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visit the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration. 14. The allegations made against the Respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehavior is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviors or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what (sic) is the prima facie satisfaction of the (sic) concerned on the contemplatory report (sic) the occurrence complained of an if the (sic) as submitted by learned Counsel (sic) Respondents, of holding an elaborate (sic) to be insisted upon the very purpose of (sic) an employee in public interest or (sic) of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether the Respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. 14. In the instant case also the Petitioner has been transferred from Dhubri on twin grounds of his unsatisfactory performance there and the requirement of services of an Executive Engineer at the disposal of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council. The letter dated 12.11.2003 addressed to the Chief Minister by the Minister, Public Health Department, Assam (Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition) recorded both the reasons for transfer of the Petitioner even before completion of 3 years at Dhubri. The Chief Minister granted the necessary approval. The course of action adopted by the Respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal in any manner warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of power of judicial review. 15. The ground of attack that the progress of the work pertaining to various scheme would be hampered automatically falls through. The Petitioner may feel his service indispensable at a particular place of positing. But it is the Government which is to decide as to who should be posted where. The kind of dissatisfaction expressed in the functioning of the Petitioner coupled with the stand of the Respondents in their affidavit that the Petitioner did not show any interest towards implementation of the scheme in the division perfectly justified the action of the Respondents in transferring the Petitioner. 16. A question may arise as to whether the ex-post facto approval granted by the Chief Minister on 12.11.2003 towards issuance of the transfer order dated 7.10.2003 would meet the requirement of getting approval of the Chief Minister for transferring an officer before completion of three years in one station. The transfer guidelines on which the Petitioner placed reliance do not speak of "prior approval" of the Chief Minister in such a matter. Two requirements have been emphasized in the transfer guidelines issued under office memorandum dated 4.2.2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). They are, proper justification and ground of such premature transfer to be recorded in writing and the order be issued only after getting approval of the Chief Minister for such a transfer. Two requirements have been emphasized in the transfer guidelines issued under office memorandum dated 4.2.2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). They are, proper justification and ground of such premature transfer to be recorded in writing and the order be issued only after getting approval of the Chief Minister for such a transfer. Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition is the letter/note addressed to the Chief Minister giving proper justification and ground of transfer of the Petitioner from Dhubri even before completion of three years and seeking ex-post facto approval to the order of transfer already issued on 7.10.2003. The transfer order dated 7.10.2003 was issued in the exigency of the matter as narrated in the said letter/note. 17. It may be argued that the expression used in the transfer guideline "order issued only after getting approval of the Chief Minister" would necessarily mean the requirement of prior approval of the Chief Minister and that an order which is bad at its very inception cannot be made legal by later ratification. But the position will have to be understood in the context. The issue involved is in respect of an order of transfer. There may be occasion for transferring an officer immediately in the exigencies of service at a time when the Chief Minister is absent. What will happen in such a situation? Can it be said that the officer cannot be transferred without the approval of the Chief Minister? In my considered opinion the answer is "No", more particularly in view of the fact that the transfer guidelines do not have any statutory force and are only directory and not mandatory in nature. Legal formulations cannot be divorced from the fact situation of the case. Rules of procedure are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual without possibility of any change in the decision. 18. Things would have been different had there been no approval at all or refusal on the part of the Chief Minister to accord approval to the transfer of the Petitioner. Rules of procedure are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual without possibility of any change in the decision. 18. Things would have been different had there been no approval at all or refusal on the part of the Chief Minister to accord approval to the transfer of the Petitioner. This is precisely the reason as to why the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank v. Debasis Das as reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557 while discussing in detail the concept, meaning, object, scope and applicability of "Natural Justice" observed that though in all cases post decisional hearing cannot be a substitute for pre-decisional hearing, in a given case the position might be different. 19. For the foregoing reasons aid discussions, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 7.10.2003 and thus as a natural consequence the writ petition fails. 20. However, there is another aspect of the matter. The Petitioner is at the verge of retirement, his age of superannuation being 31/1/2006. Thus the Petitioner is now left with only one and half years of service. Considering that aspect of the matter, the Petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for his posting elsewhere, if the present place of posting is inconvenient for him on valid and good ground. By saying so no direction is issued to the Respondents to act in a particular manner to accommodate the Petitioner as per his choice. It is left open to the sound discretion of the competent authority to consider the case of the Petitioner in case of making such a request. 21. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. The interim orders dated 22.10.2003 and 25.11.2003 stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed