JUDGMENT : Antony Dominic, J. 1st petitioner is a Trade Instructor and the 2nd petitioner is a Screen Printer at the Sub centre, Kollam of Kerala State Audio Visual and Repro-graphic Centre (KSAVRC), the 1st respondent. By Exts. P1 and P2, they were transferred and posted to Kozhikode and Kannur Centres. They challenged Exts. P1 and P2 before this Court by filing WP (C) 34097/2009. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P10 judgment directing that in view of the disputed questions of fact, proper course open to the petitioners was to file an appeal before the Governing Body of the 1st respondent. On that basis, it was directed that if appeal is filed, same will be entertained and disposed of. Accordingly, petitioners filed Ext. P11 appeal which was considered and rejected by the Governing Body by Ext. P12 order. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been file challenging Exts. P1, P2 and P12 order rejecting the appeal. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is mainly that when the present Managing Director of the 1st respondent assumed charge, the employees posted as a demonstration was taken out. It is contended that for this reason, they were proceeded against, and finally they were imposed punishment by Exts. P7 and P8 reducing their scale of pay. It is to wreck vengeance on them, they were transferred by Exts. P1 and P2. It is also his contention that the aspects that were directed to be considered in Ext. P10 judgment were not considered while issuing Ext. P1. 3. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that though for the misconducts committed by the petitioners, they were imposed punishment as per Exts. P7 and P8, neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the punishments imposed on the petitioners have any relevance insofar as Exts. P1 and P2 are concerned. It is stated that the petitioners have not succeeded in establishing any mala fides on other irregularity against the impugned orders of transfer and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the administrative decision taken by the 1st respondent. 4. Petitioners have no case that the post held by them are not transferable. Therefore, employees like the petitioners have the liability to work at the transferred places. 4. Petitioners have no case that the post held by them are not transferable. Therefore, employees like the petitioners have the liability to work at the transferred places. Then the question would arise whether the transfer was necessitated due to exigencies of service. 5. Counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent shows that in the Kollam Sub centre, where the petitioners are presently working, there is no student undergoing training process and for that reason, they do not need any person for imparting training. It is also stated that for commercial works also, they do not need any employee and that despite all this, there are 11 employees including the petitioners. It is also stated that in the Sub centre at Kozhikode to which the 1st petitioners transferred, there are 30 students who are undergoing training. They need three persons for imparting training. It is stated that for commercial works they need 15 employees and that against their total requirements, the number of employees now posted is only 11 Similarly in Kannur Sub centre, none is undergoing any training. They need 9 employees for attending commercial works. As against the said requirement, the present strength is only seven. According to the 1st respondent, it is in view of the non availability of work in Kollam and availability of work and the inadequacy of man power at Kozhikode and Kannur, petitioners 1 and 2 were transferred. 6. There is no material to conclude that the aforesaid facts stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is incorrect. If that be so, evidently exigencies of service has been made out in the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. In such a case unless a strong case of mala fldes has been established by the petitioners, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Exts. P1 and P2. Although it is the case of the petitioners that Exts. P1 and P2 are the outcome of Exts. P7 and P8 orders of punishment, in the absence of any material, this Court will not be justified in accepting the contention of the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the salary of the petitioners has been reduced and with the income that they now earn, it will not be possible for the petitioners to survive at the transferred places. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the salary of the petitioners has been reduced and with the income that they now earn, it will not be possible for the petitioners to survive at the transferred places. As already seen, petitioners hold transferable posts and they have the liability to work at the transferred placed. Therefore, the fact that the petitioners are earning at the minimum of the scale will not invalidate the order of transfer, which is a part of their conditions of service. 8. I am not persuaded to interfere with Exts. P1 and P2 on the materials available in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.