JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order dated 18.8.2007 issued from the office of the Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Manipur under Memo No. 6/14/2007-MID. Since the facts and legal issues involved therein are one and the same, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. I have heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned Counsel appearing in WP (C) No. 625 of 2007 and Shri Roshini Piba, learned Counsel appearing in WP (C) No. 666 of 2007. Also heard Mr. Jallaluddin Ahmed, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State Respondents No. 1 and 2 whereas the private Respondent No. 3 was represented by Shri N. Jotendro, 1earned counsel. 3. The writ Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.8.2007 primarily because the Respondent No. 3, Shri L. Madhop Singh has been allowed to look after a Division, which should normally be headed by a regular Executive Engineer. It is the case of the writ Petitioners that all the Petitioners (7 in number) are Assistant Engineers senior to the Respondent No. 3 and despite that, the Respondent No. 3 has been suitably posted to MID-I so that he can work as an Executive Engineer overlooking the seniority of the Petitioners. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, this has been done at the behest of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It was also submitted that under the directions of the Chief Minister, the Respondent No. 3 was earlier transferred from MID-III to MID-I as an Assistant Engineer with a direction to look after the division after transferring the Executive Engineer, namely, Shri A. Kalachand vide order dated 21.7.2007. The said transfer order dated 21.7.2007 was challenged by Shri A. Kalachand as well as by one K. Ramkumar Singh by way of filing writ petitions before this Court. The writ petitions were numbered as WP (C) Nos. 553 and 555 of 2007. The transfer order dated 21.7.2007 was stayed by this Court on 27.7.2007 and within a period of less than one month, Anr. identical order of transfer was issued on 18.8.2007 giving the same status and position to the Respondent No. 3. Hence, the present writ petitions. The writ petitions were numbered as WP (C) Nos. 553 and 555 of 2007. The transfer order dated 21.7.2007 was stayed by this Court on 27.7.2007 and within a period of less than one month, Anr. identical order of transfer was issued on 18.8.2007 giving the same status and position to the Respondent No. 3. Hence, the present writ petitions. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, because of this biased posting, legal right of the Petitioners for getting higher responsibilities and higher status as per their seniority has been infringed, which is also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the other hand, Shri Jallaluddin Ahmed, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate defended the impugned order on the ground that the concerned department has made the ad-hoc arrangement due to suspension of Shri A. Kalachand, who was the Executive Engineer of MID-I. According to the learned Govt. Advocate, this Court should not interfere in such temporary arrangement, which is done in the interest of public administration. 5. Shri N. Jotendro, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 also submitted that the Respondent No. 3 has been allowed to look after the division under emergency because of suspension of the incumbent Executive Engineer since the Respondent No. 3 is the seniormost Assistant Engineer in MID-I. In this way, according to the learned Counsel, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It was also contended that the order dated 18.8.2007 was not issued under any political pressure. 6. In WP (C) No. 666 of 2007, the Petitioners have annexed Unofficial Order of the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 20.7.2007 directing the Minister of Minor Irrigation Department to transfer Shri A. Kalachand and post the Respondent No. 3 in MID-I and give him the charge of the office of Executive Engineer. The State Respondents have not disputed the factual authenticity of the U.O. No. 1/36-2007-C.M. dated 20.7.2007. As noted earlier, the Respondent No. 3 was immediately taken to MID-No. I replacing Shri A. Kalachand and the Respondent No. 3 was also allowed to look after the division as Executive Engineer vide order dated 21.7.2007. Despite stay order from this Court, the impugned transfer order was issued on 18.8.2007 within a period of three weeks. 7. As noted earlier, the Respondent No. 3 was immediately taken to MID-No. I replacing Shri A. Kalachand and the Respondent No. 3 was also allowed to look after the division as Executive Engineer vide order dated 21.7.2007. Despite stay order from this Court, the impugned transfer order was issued on 18.8.2007 within a period of three weeks. 7. The relevant portions of transfer orders are reproduced below for ready reference: It is also ordered that the seniormost AE of MID-1 will look after the works of EE/MID-I vide Shri A. Kalachand Singh, now under suspension. And the earlier order of giving look after appointment as SW to CE/MID to Shri Tualhnun is also withdrawn with immediate effect and until further orders. ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR : MANIPUR Imphal, the 21st July, 2007 *** **** *** 1. A. Kalachand Singh As SW to SE, MID, Manipur Vice Shri S. Tualhum, AE-MID (look after SW to SE, MID, Manipur transferred. *** *** *** *** *** *** 3. L. Madhop Singh, AE Imphal West, MID-III Manipur As AE/MID No. 1, Thoubal Sub-Divn. And will look the works of EE/MID No. 1 vice Shri A. Kalachand Singh transferred. ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR : MANIPUR Imphal, the 18st August, 2007 **** **** **** **** **** **** 1. L. Madhop Singh, AE (Imphal West, MID-III) As AE/MID No. 1, Thoubal Sub-Divn. MID No. 1 **** **** **** **** **** **** 5. Shri O. Goverdhon Singh AE (Chandel Sub-Divn.) As AE( Imphal West Sub-Divn. MID-III Vice S1. No. 1 **** **** **** **** **** **** Sl. No. 1 & 6 will move first. 8. During the argument, learned Govt. Advocate fairly conceded the virtually there is no difference in the orders dated 21.7.2007 and 18.8.2007. I also find that in both the orders, the Respondent No. 3, L. Madhop Singh, Assistant Engineer has been transferred from MID-III to MID-I without any regular promotion. The only difference is that in the earlier order, the Respondent No. 3 was allowed to take over the charge of Executive Engineer in explicit language whereas in the impugned order, it has been stated that the seniormost Assistant Engineer of MID-I will look after the works of EE/MID-I. Not only this, it is apparent that Shri O. Goverdhon Singh, who is the Petitioner No. 3 has also been shifted from MID-I only to accommodate the Respondent No. 3. It is because without transfer of Shri O. Goverdhon Singh, it would not have been possible for the Government to allow the Respondent No. 3 to look after the division since Shri O. Goverdhon Singh (Petitioner No. 3) is admittedly senior to Respondent No. 3. It is worth mentioning here the Petitioners have submitted seniority list which clearly shows that all the seven Petitioners are senior to the Respondent No. 3. Since the transfer orders have been issued in the immediate proximate of U.O. letter of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, it can safely be inferred that the Respondent No. 3 has been transferred to MID-I with calculated intention to give the charge of the division. 9. As mentioned earlier, the previous transfer order dated 21.7.2007 was challenged by A. Kalachand Singh in WP (C) No. 553 of 2007 and obtained stay order on 27.7.2007. This Executive Engineer was placed under suspension within a period of two weeks vide order dated 16.8.2007, contemplating drawal of departmental proceeding for committing financial impropriety. It would not be proper for me to dwell upon the rationality, propriety and justification of the suspension order but one thing is apparent that the State Respondents were bent upon to shift the Respondent No. 3 to MID-I and give him the de-facto status of Executive Engineer. 10. It is true that transfer is an incident of service conditions and no employee or officer can claim a particular posting. However, in the present case, the Respondent No. 3 has contested the writ petitions to defend his posting at MID-I. This fact ex-facie indicates that he has personal interest in the said posting. Be that as it may, this Court has repeatedly interfered with transfer orders, which were found to be tainted one, more particularly, politically influenced transfer orders. 11. In the case of Jibeswar Thakuria v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2004 (1) GLT 347 : 2005 (4) SLR 26, the following thought provoking observations were made while staying the transfer order made on political influence: 21. With the above revelation from the records relating to the grounds of transfer of the Petitioners vis-a-vis the private Respondents in all the cases, it is now to be decided as to whether the impugned orders in all the three writ petitions are sustainable or not. With the above revelation from the records relating to the grounds of transfer of the Petitioners vis-a-vis the private Respondents in all the cases, it is now to be decided as to whether the impugned orders in all the three writ petitions are sustainable or not. It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. The appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Govt. is the best Judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of the employees. However, the power must be exercise honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It must be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous consideration or for achievement of alien purpose or/and motive, it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. The transfer may be termed to be founded on mala fide and colourable exercise of power when it is not for the professed purpose like normal course, public or administrative interest or in the exigency of service, but for other purpose like accomodating Anr. person at the behest of the political basis having no nexus with the Department concerned. 22. The responsibility for good administration is that of the Government. The maintenance of efficient, honest and experienced administration is a must for due discharge of that responsibility. When the transfer is not administered on the established principles of exigency, but for other purpose and on extraneous consideration, the same is illegal and liable to be set aside. One of the elementary principles of administrative law is that the authority which has to exercise the power should apply its mind before such exercise. It cannot abdicate its application to do so and act on the instances of the Anr. authority which is not authorized to exercise the power. 11.1. Earlier to that also, in the case of Ramen Talukdar v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 1998 (2) GLT 82, the transfer order was quashed with the following observations: It is true that who is to be transferred and where is a matter exclusively in the domain of the appropriate authority and the Court shall not normally interfere with it unless the order is made in violation of the statutory provision or is vitiated with malafide. In the instant case as has already been held hereinbefore, the order is tainted and malafide because of external influence and, as such, cannot be sustained. 12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. A.V. Venugopala Rao reported in (1995) 1 SCC 179 . In this case also, the order of transfer of an officer giving interim in-charge of the office was challenged. However, the transfer order was sustained by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground that the transferred officer was the senior most in the rank. In other words, the Hon'ble Apex Court found rationality in the order giving charge of office to the senior most officer. From this judgment also, it is apparent that seniority of eligible employees should be taken into consideration even for interim arrangement. In my considered opinion, maintaining seniority even for short period is also necessary to maintain discipline in the Department and it would also avoid heart burning among rival claimants. 13. Identical view has also been taken by the Gauhati High Court in the cases of Nani Bhusan Roy v. State of Assam (2003) 3 GLR 446; Satya Charan Biswas v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in2004 (Supp.) GLT 808 : (2005) 3 GLR 275 and in the case of Jagannath Pegu v. State of Assam 2007 (3) GLT 389. In both these cases, it has been held that seniority and length of service can not be overlooked even for the purpose of temporary arrangement, provided the incumbent is otherwise eligible to hold such a post. 14. Fairness, reasonableness and transparency are the touchstone of executive and administrative functions. The Indian judiciary is consistently improving the theory of fair-play. Without multiplying authorities on this doctrine. I think the following few trend-setting observations from the Hon'ble Supreme Court would suffice to draw the point. In the case of Netai Bag and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 262 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has re-affirmed fairness in executive actions in the following words: 17. It has been consistently held by this Court that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, the executive Government or any of its officers cannot be allowed to possess arbitrary powers over the interests of the individual. It has been consistently held by this Court that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, the executive Government or any of its officers cannot be allowed to possess arbitrary powers over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be in conformity with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. The Government cannot be equated with an individual in the matter of selection of the receipient for its largesse. Dealing with the limits on the exercise of executive authority in relation to rule of administrative justice, Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vitarelli v. Seaton359 US 535 said: An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes it action to be judged.... Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed.... This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with that sword. 15. In the case of Onkar Lal Bajaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 673 , the Apex Court reiterated about the concept of probity in governance in the following lucid words: 36. The role model for governance and decision taken thereof should manifest equity, fair play and justice. The cardinal principle of governance in a civilized society based on rule of law not only has to base on transparency but must create an impression that the decision-making was motivated on the consideration of probity. The Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interests and nepotism and eschew window-dressing. The act of governance has to withstand the test of judiciousness and impartiality and avoid arbitrary or capricious actions. Therefore, the principle of governance has to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play and if the decision is not based on justice, equity and fair play and has taken into consideration other matters of fact, the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, that decision cannot be allowed to operate. 16. Probity in executive functions without being influenced by extraneous considerations has also been emphasized in umpteen numbers of cases. 16. Probity in executive functions without being influenced by extraneous considerations has also been emphasized in umpteen numbers of cases. For brevity of judgment, I am quoting below apt observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab reported in (2001) 6 SCC 260 . 16. In the system of Indian democratic government as contemplated by the Constitution, senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to mortgage their own discretion, volition and decision-making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. The Conduct Rules of Central Government Services command the civil servants to maintain at all times absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. No government servant shall in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of power conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior. In Anirudhsinhji Jadeja (1995) 5 SCC 302 this Court has held that a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the direction or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether. 17. Reverting back to the facts of the writ petitions, I find least justification to transfer the Respondent No. 3 to MID-I and more particularly, giving him the charge of the office of Executive Engineer. Neither the learned Government Advocate nor the affidavit of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 could justify such action. It should be made known to the Respondents that any order woven with political fabric and blended with executive biasness can not sustain in the eye of law. Any such limping order would tumble down even before facing the judicial test. Had it been a transfer simpliciter, it could have been presumed that the transfer order was issued in the public interest and without any malice. However, facts and circumstances of the case clearly suggest that it is a malafide transfer. I do not hesitate to hold that the impugned transfer order has violated all cannons and norms of fairness, reasonableness and transparency in the executive actions. However, facts and circumstances of the case clearly suggest that it is a malafide transfer. I do not hesitate to hold that the impugned transfer order has violated all cannons and norms of fairness, reasonableness and transparency in the executive actions. Bad smell of favouritism and foul play is sneezing out of the impugned order. It is out and out a motivated and biased order. The State Respondents have also disregarded the stay order passed in WP (C) No. 553 and 555 of 2007. 18. For the foregoing reasons set out hereinabove, the impugned order dated 18.8.2007 (Annexure-A/11) is hereby partially set aside so far it relates to Respondent No. 3, namely, L. Madhop Singh. It is ordered that the seniormost Assistant Engineer should be posted in MID-I, who can look after the works of Executive Engineer till regular appointment of Executive Engineer is made. It is needless to mention here that the State Government shall make all endeavour to appoint regular Executive Engineers in all the divisions and even for interim arrangement, the seniority of officers should be considered. 19. In the result, both the writ petitions stand allowed. Since the impugned order is contemptuous and malafide in nature, the writ petitions are allowed with costs of Rs. 21,000/-. All the seven writ Petitioners shall be entitled to cost of Rs. 3000/- each. The State Respondents are directed to pay this amount to the writ Petitioners within two months from today. If the amount is not paid during this period, it shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from today, which can be realized through Civil Court.