JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order, contained in Notification No. 3289 dated 28th June, 2005, whereby and where under, he has been transferred from Nimdih to Gumla. 2. The main plea taken to challenge the order is to accommodate the respondents, the order of transfer has been issued, transferring the petitioner from Nimdih within three months. 3. It appears that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, R.E.O. Sub-Division, Nimdih by Notification No. 3639 dated 26th June, 2004, which was unsuccessfully challenged by 7th respondent, in W.P. (S) No. 2433 of 2004. It was dismissed on 16th December, 2005 and order was affirmed upto Supreme Court. Subsequently, in place of 8th respondent, the petitioner was posted by Notification No. 7192 dated 13th December, 2004, but there he had not joined. The 7th respondent also challenged the said order unsuccessfully in W.P. (S) No. 6776 of 2004. Thus, a dispute of transfer and posting was there between the parties. 4. The case was earlier taken up on 9th December, 2005, when the following order was passed: Heard in part. On 28th November, 2004, this Court noticed that no note was given by any ministerial staff or other officer for transfer or posting of one or other Engineer from one place to another place. Even it was not recorded whether one or other Engineer has completed three years tenure at any one place and for some administrative exigency required transfer before completion of normal posting of three years. Without any note given by any staff or officer, the Establishment Committee prepared a chart showing transfer of Engineers from one place to another. It was further noticed that a large number of pairavis were made by Ministers and M.L.As, which are there in the original file. As, prima facie, it appeared that recommendations were made on pairauis and in violation of Section 32 of the Prevention of S.C.P. Act, 1983, the officers were directed to assist this Court. Mr. Chintu Nayak, Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who has appeared in person, could not bring on record any office note given by any ministerial staff or officer relating to transfer and posting of one or other Engineer. Mr. Chintu Nayak, Secretary, Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, who has appeared in person, could not bring on record any office note given by any ministerial staff or officer relating to transfer and posting of one or other Engineer. It is not clear as to how one or other member of the Establishment Committee could come to know the place of posting of one or other Engineer and the position of vacancy before issuing order of transfer. In the circumstances, I direct the Members of the Establishment committee to appear before this Court on the next date. Mr. Chintu Nayak, Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi will inform the officers of their appearance. Let this case be listed for further hearing under the heading FOR ORDERS on 21st December, 2005 on the top of the list. In the meantime, the office is directed to prepare the photostat copy of the original file, keep it on record and return the original file to the learned Advocate General. 5. The Respondents have produced the file and the Members of the Establishment Committee also explained the manner in which transfer orders were passed. This Court was not happy with the manner in which the file relating to transfer and posting moved before the authorities. In fact, no specific noting was given in the main file. It was informed that the data of officers were entered in the computer. Those who, had completed three years of tenure, their data were taken out from the Computer and placed before the Establishment Committee. 6. To the query made by the Court, it was informed that there being certain complaints against some officers, their cases were also considered for transfer and posting, though they may not have completed three years of posting at one place. 7. In the case of Kameshwar Prasad Thakur v. State of Bihar reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 251, a Full Bench of Patna High Court held that the Court generally should not interfere with the transfer order unless made in violation of any mandatory/statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. In the case of Mrs. 7. In the case of Kameshwar Prasad Thakur v. State of Bihar reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 251, a Full Bench of Patna High Court held that the Court generally should not interfere with the transfer order unless made in violation of any mandatory/statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. In the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar reported in 1991 (1) PLJR 61 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Court should not interfere with the order of transfer made in public interest and/or for administrative reasons, unless transfer order is in violation of any mandatory/ statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. The Court further observed that even if transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department concerned. Interference by the Court in day-to-day transfer orders will lead to administrative chaos and not in public interest. 8. As, in the present case, there is nothing on the record to suggest mala fide on the part of one or other officer in transferring the petitioner and no individual person has been impleaded as party Respondent to allege mala fide against such person and the order been passed by the competent authority, in absence of any such evidence and there being no violation of any statutory rule, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order, as to costs. 9. Let the photo copy of the original record, as kept, be handed over to the learned Counsel for the State.