Judgment Chandramuli Kumar Prasad and Ravi Ranjan JJ. 1. Booth the appeals arise out of a common order and as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Short facts giving rise to the present appeals, are that the writ petitioner-appellants, hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners, were Class III and Class IV employees of the State Government. By order dated 27.10.1999, they were transferred from one place to another. They challenged their transfer order, Inter alia, contending that the transfer has been made beyond the cadre and as such, same is illegal. 2. The learned single judge, taking into account Section 7 of the Bihar Water Resources Department Mufassil Cadre Maintenance Ordinance, 1998, held that the same is permissible and accordingly, dismissed the writ applications. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred these appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. Mr. Durga Nand Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that transfer from one cadre to another is not permissible in law. 4. We do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Jha. Ordinarily transfer from one cadre to another is not permissible but it can be made, if the law governing service condition permits that. In the present case, Section 17, of the Bihar Water Resources Department Mufassil Cadre Maintenance Ordinance, 1998 provides for transfer of Class III and IV employees on administrative ground from one cadre to another. In that view of the matter, the order of transfer cannot be said to be bad. 5. Mr. Jha then contends that the transfer order has been passed by an incompetent authority. However, when questioned as to how it is incompetent, he is unable to explain the same. The order of transfer has been passed by the State Government and hence, it can not be said that it is by an incompetent authority. 6. Mr. Jha then draws our attention to the order of transfer and submits that the impugned order is punitive in nature and once it is held so, writ petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity before passing the order to meet the requirement of the principle of natural justice. 7. We do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Jha also. The Writ petitioners have not been transferred on the ground of proven misconduct. 7. We do not find any substance in this submission of Mr. Jha also. The Writ petitioners have not been transferred on the ground of proven misconduct. Such kinds of orders are passed on administrative ground. Expression "Gambhir Aarop" mentioned in the impugned order, which has been deleted later on, will not mean that the writ petitioners have been transferred on the ground of misconduct. The transfer order states that it has been effected on administrative ground and on the basis of the material on record, it can not be said that it is punitive in nature. 8. Mr. Jha lastly submits that the order of transfer is mala fide. He points out that it is on account of mala fide report of the Executive Engineer that the writ petitioners have been transferred. The order of transfer has not been passed by the Executive Engineer but the State Government. Further, the allegation of mala fide has been levelled against the Executive Engineer and in the absence of the person against whom mala fide is alleged, this question cannot be gone into. 9. We are of the opinion that the learned Single judge did not err in dismissing the writ petitions. 10. In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals and are dismissed accordingly with cost of Rs. 6500/-, which shall be realized from each of the appellants at the rate of Rs. 500/- each.