By this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the impugned transfer and posting order dated 16.11.2004 on the main ground that it was an outcome of the mala fide exercise of power and was issued on external influence and also on political interference. [2] The fact of the case arising to the filing of the present writ petition assailing the impugned transfer and posting order dated 16.11.2004 is short and simple. [3] It is said that while the petitioner was serving as Assistant Graduate Teacher, along with 2 (two) others were allowed to work as Assistant Inspector of Schools in view of the unavoidable need of their services vide order of the Director, Education (S), Government of Manipur being No. 3/19/90-ED(EL)(H) dated 13th June, 1995. While the petitioner is working as Assistant Inspector of Schools, the authority passed an order for reverting the petitioner and others to their former schools in which they were serving before they were appointed as Inspector of Schools. Against the said reversion order, the petitioner and two others filed a joint writ petition being C.R.No.341 of 1997 before this court. And this court passed an interim order dated 11.4.1997 to the effect that; “In the interim the implementation of the impugned order at Annexure A/11 shall remain stayed in respect of the Petitioners until further orders”, copy of which is available at Annexure-A/2 to the present writ petition. In view of the interim order of this court dated 11.4.1997 passed in CR No. 341 of 1997, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued an order being No. 2/498/96-ED(S), dated 27th April, 1998 to the effect that the earlier reversion order shall not be given effect to in respect of the present petitioner and others till the vacation of the interim order of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. It is, further, said that the said interim order has not yet vacated or modified. [4] Again in a writ petition being WP© No. 774 of 2000 filed by the petitioner and other, this court passed final judgment and order dated 28.6.2000 to the effect that the petitioners shall be entitled to get the scale of pay enjoyed by the regularly appointed AIs and they shall be entitled to the scale of pay of AIs from their initial dates of appointment/engagement, i.e. w.e.f. 5.12.1994, copy of which is available at Annexure-A/4 to the present writ petition. But surprisingly, the petitioner learnt that the Hon'ble MLS, Shri A.Aza wrote a note dated 3.11.2004, which reads as follows: “ In continuation of my previous UO letter in this regard, the transfer and posting between Shri K.P.Yo, Head Master Paoyi Jr H/S and Shri A.S.Wilson, A.I. of Schools, ZEO, Ukhrul, be made immediately in public interest.” [5] It is said that on the basis of the said note of the Hon'ble Member of Manipur Legislative Assembly, Shri A. Aza, the Hon'ble Minister (Education/S), Shri Francis Ngajokpa taken up steps for transferring the petitioner from his posting as AI in ZEO Ukhrul and in his place for posting the private respondent, Shri K.P. Yo, as AI in ZEO Ukhrul. Accordingly under the influence of Hon'ble MLA, Shri A. Aza the Commissioner/Education (S), Government of Manipur issued the impugned order being No. 3/6/04-SE(S) dated 16th November, 2994 for transferring the petitioner from his posting as AI, in ZEO Ukhrul and posted as Headmaster of Paoyi Jr High School, hence this present writ petition. [6] In spite of giving sufficient opportunity to the State respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition they failed to file the same. But the private respondent, K.P. Yo, filed his affidavit-inopposition. In his affidavit-in-opposition, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner had already been released in pursuance of the impugned transfer and posting order dated 16.11.2004 and he had already joined in the new posting as Headmaster, Paoyi Jr High School. The State respondents have not denied the serious allegation made by the petitioner in the present writ petition that the impugned transfer and posting order was issued under the political influence made by the Hon'ble MLA, Mr. A. Aza by writing his note mentioned above. Further the respondents are not producing any record/relevant file relating with the impugned transfer and posting order dated 16.11.2004. In this regard, we may recall the decision of the Apex Court in Bir Singh Chauhan Vs State of Haryana & Anr: (1997) 6 SCC 282 wherein it is held that; as the respondents neither filed counter nor produced the record the court is constrained to accept the case of the writ petitioner. The Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs United Labour Union & Ors: 1997 (2) Supreme 165 held that the arms of the Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Vs United Labour Union & Ors: 1997 (2) Supreme 165 held that the arms of the Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Apex Court also in The State of 4 Maharashtra Vs Digambar: (1995) 4 SCC 683 held that the power of High Court to exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution if it is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable. This court notes and appreciates the steps taken up by Shri Th. Ibohal, learned Government Advocate for placing the relevant files before this court for the ends that the impugned transfer and posting order dated 16.11.2004 was issued on the basis of the said U.O Note/letter of the Hon'ble MLA, Shri A.Aza dated 3.11.2004. [7] It is now fairly settled that; no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts is not only an incident, but a condition of service and also that 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, [Ref:National Hydroelectric power corporation Vs 1.Shri Bhagwan, 2. Shiv Prakash, (2001) 8 SCC 574 ]. [8] In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner that the transfer of an employee cannot be made on a political influence inasmuch as it would amount to issuing the transfer order on mala fide and colorable exercise of power has placed reliance on: (1) Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors : (2003) 11 SCC 740, (2) Ramen Talukdar Vs State of Assam & Ors : 1998 (2) GLT 82 (3) Ramzan Ali Ahmed Vs Taiyab Ali Ahmed & Ors : 1998 (2) GLT 242, (4) Prasanna Kumar Nath Vs State of Assam & Ors : 2005 (4) GLT 348. [9] In Ramen Talukdar Vs State of Assam & Ors (supra) the transfer of the teacher (petitioner) was made at the behest of the Minister for political reason and not for public interest. [9] In Ramen Talukdar Vs State of Assam & Ors (supra) the transfer of the teacher (petitioner) was made at the behest of the Minister for political reason and not for public interest. This Court held that the transfer at the behest of the Minister is malafide and accordingly quashed the transfer order. Para 3 and 4 of the judgment in 5 Ramen Talukdar Vs State of Assam & Ors (supra) reads as follows: “3. Pursuant to the said Notification dated 14.7.2002, the petitioner joined as Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari and according to him he could detect many irregularities including financial irregularities committed by the respondent No. 5 during his tenure as the Project Director, DRDS, Nalbari. Various irregularities purportedly committed by the respondent No. 5 had been highlighted in the writ petition and the purported steps undertaken by the petitioner to streamline the functioning of the DRDA, Nalbari. 4. According to the petitioner, various politicians of the area including the MLA's of the various Legislative Constituencies in the district of Nalbari directed the petitioner to act in a particular manner as desired by them in the matter of implementation of the various developmental activities. According to him, refusal to act as per the dictates of the said politicians attracted their wrath against the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed some of the recommendations made by the members of the Legislative Assembly as Annexure-7 series.” [10] In Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs U.P.Jal Nigam & Ors (supra) held that the transfer order was made on the recommendation made by the Minister and MLAs in the form of noting. The Apex Court in that case held that such transfer order on the recommendation of the Minister/MLAs are arbitrary and mala fide and not in favour of good administration. Para nos.2 and 3 of the judgment in Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors (supra) reads as follows: “2. It is the contention of the petitioner that his transfer is mala fide and without following any guidelines for transferring the officers. As against this, it has been pointed out that the petitioner is transferred because certain complaints were received against him. It is the contention of the petitioner that his transfer is mala fide and without following any guidelines for transferring the officers. As against this, it has been pointed out that the petitioner is transferred because certain complaints were received against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Annexure A-2, the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, which is in the form of noting and order (C&DS) dated 27-8-2000 which indicates that transfers are effected at the recommendations of either Ministers or MLAs/MPs/MLCs. 3. In our view, transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded 6 arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. For better administration the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration.” [11] The Division Bench of this in Ramzan Ali Ahmed Vs Taiyab Ali Ahmed & Ors (supra) while allowing the writ appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the transfer order held thus in para nos.13 and 15. “13. The impugned judgment proceeded on erroneous assumption that it was a case of mala fides imputed against the Minister-in-charge or the M.L.A who were not made parties to the petition while in fact it is not so. The writ petitioner Appellant has filed a copy of resolution dated 12.2.97 as passed by the Managing Committee, Annexure-1(1) and a photo copy of the letter dated 8.2.97, Annexure-I-H written by the Principal, Agomoni H.S:School to the Director of Secondary Education which is indicate of the minds of the authorities, despite this Court's stay order dated 29.1.97 suspending the operation of transfer order dated 16.1.97 the Principal of the School writes to the Director that the writ Petitioner was not allowed to join in the School as is evident from Annexure-I-H filed by the writ Petitioner in M.C. Case No. 137 of 1997 and the reason assigned for not allowing him to join is “as no information was received from the Director”. The letter itself is reproduced below for ready reference: “With reference to your letter No. GB/EST/TRN/24/93/30 dated 16.1.97 Sri Ramjan Ali Ahmed, S.T. Agomani H.S. School has been released from this school on 20.1.97. But Sri Taiyab Ali Ahmed has not been released from Satrasal H.S. Vidyapith and could not join here till today. In the meantime Sri Ramjan Ali Ahmed has returned to this institution on 1.2.97 with Hon'ble High Court's order. He is not allowed to join this institution as no information has not yet been received from your end. This is for your kind information and necessary action.” What more remains in the case to infer colourable exercise of power on the part of the 7 authorities? The learned Single Judge mistook it to be a case of malice imputed against the MLA or Minister-incharge which it was certainly not as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in B. Prabhakar Rao & others Vs State f Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1986 SC 210 , merely because certain questions have to be determined incidentally in giving or not giving the relief asked for in the petition does not make each and every persons interested in such question necessary parties to such proceeding. In the instant case necessary parties, the authority passing the transfer order was very much there and it was for him to satisfy the Court that the impugned order of transfer was not made on any extraneous consideration or any colourable exercise of power, it was in fact public interest as professed in the order, but that has not been done. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on this count. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, this appeal deserves to be allowed, it is accordingly allowed. The impugned order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition, Civil Rule No. 424/97 is allowed and the impugned order of transfer dated 16.1.97, Annexure-3 is quashed. It is case for imposition of cost. But we purposely refrained from imposing any cost in the hope that in future such colourable exercise of power should not be repeated. Appeal allowed.” [12] The fact of the case in Prasanna Kumar Nath Vs State of Assam & Ors (supra) spelt out in para-11 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “11. I have perused the records produced by the learned State Counsel. Appeal allowed.” [12] The fact of the case in Prasanna Kumar Nath Vs State of Assam & Ors (supra) spelt out in para-11 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “11. I have perused the records produced by the learned State Counsel. The records do not indicate any incapacity or lacuna in the style of functioning of the petitioner. The only reason assigned for transfer of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent no.5 is the request made by the MLA, Dharmapur Constituency in the district of Nalbari. A note was given by the said MLA to the Chief Minister of the State and the note also bears the signatures of three others whom the learned State counsel identified as three ML As. The note reads as follows: “HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER Undersigned would like to request you to kindly transfer the present Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari, Sri P.Nath and in his place Sri Subhas Burgaohain, ACS, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mangaldoi may kindly be 8 ordered to be posted as Project Director, DRDA, Nalbari in the greater interest of the public. Sd/-MLA Dharmapur Constituency, Nalbari. 1.Sd/-MLA 2.Sd/-MLA 3.Sd/-MLA” [13] Keeping in view of the above discussions, this court is of the considered view that the impugned transfer order dated 16.11.2004 was issued on political influence and mala fide exercise of power. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is left to the State respondents to exercise their power for transferring the petitioner and private respondent according to law in the interest of public. Parties are to bear their own costs.