Judgment :- Heard both sides. .2. These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are the husband and wife, challenged the order of transfer by which they were transferred from SDA School, Virudhunagar to SDA School, Kalpakkam. as Teacher. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 has stated that he was appointed on 12.06.1979 as teacher in the Seventh-Day Adventist Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Thanjavur, which is run by the 2nd respondent and he was transferred to various schools in Tamil Nadu, which are run by the 2nd respondent and in the year 2003, he was transferred to the 4th respondent school at Virudhungar. 3. According to him, he made some allegations against the Principal of the school that the Principal in connivance with the 3rd respondent, indulging in malpractices in the administration of the school and therefore, the 3rd respondent and the Principal of the school have got grudge against him and at the instance of the 3rd respondent, he was placed under suspension, by order, dated 27.02.2007 and the order of suspension was quashed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2260 of 2007. 4. It is further stated that in May 2008, he sustained injury in the right Knee and as a result, an artificial limb was fitted in the right Knee and he was allowed to join the duty on 05.01.2009 and the 3rd respondent insisted the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement and due to hostile attitude of the Principal and the 3rd respondent towards him, the petitioner was transferred to SDA School, Kalpakkam, and the transfer order is a non-speaking order and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 5. 5. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009 is the wife of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 and she also stated that she is working as teacher in the Seventh Day Adventist Matriculation High Secondary School, Virudhunagar, run by the 2nd respondent and she was also transferred along with her husband to the 4th respondent school as they had made some allegations against the 3rd respondent about the irregularities committed by him and therefore, the 3rd respondent has got grudge against her husband and at his instance, she and her husband were transferred to Kalpakkam school and the said transfer order is against the provisions of the Code of Regulation for Matriculation School and the transfer order is a mala-fide one and is liable to be set aside. 6. The respondents 2 to 4 filed a common counter wherein they denied the allegations of mala-fide and it is stated that the petitioners were transferred to various schools for the past 23 years and there was no complaint made by them and not only the petitioners, but also the other teachers were transferred to other schools and it is a routine transfer. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent is having schools all over Tamil Nadu and the teachers are transferred to various schools due to administrative reasons and in a normal course, the petitioners were transferred to Kalpakkam school and the petitioners after relieved from Virudhunagar SDA school went to Kalpakkam SDA School and met the Principal of that school on 01.06.2009 and expressed their wiliness to join in that school. Further, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5107 of 2009 also received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance from the Principal of Kalpakkam school for shifting their household things to Kalpakkam and after receiving the amount, these writ petitions were filed. .7. It is further stated that the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5106 of 2009 was also paid his all allowances, while he was relieved from the school at Viruidhunagar and he received a total sum of Rs.51,205/- and he also received advance of Rs.10,000/-from the Kalpakkam school for shifting his household article and therefore, it cannot be stated due to mala-fide reasons, the petitioners were transferred. It is further stated that in the place of the Petitioners, Mrs.S.Jeeva Christy and Mrs.S.Deepalakshmi were appointed and even before getting the stay order from this court, the petitioners were relieved and the order of transfer is a routine one made on administrative grounds. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgement reported in 2003(4) CTC 65 in the case of The Manger, R.C. Schools, Salem Social Services Society, Alagapuram, Salem and another vs. G.Vicent Paulraj and another and 2007(1) MLJ 463 in the case of Y.Balachandra Babu and another vs. District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai Educational District and Marthandam, Kanyakumari District & others, in support of their contention. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the counsels. 10. It is admitted by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent is running various schools at various places in Tamil Nadu and in the past, the petitioners were also transferred to various schools. Therefore, when the management is having various schools and teachers are transferred from one school to another school in the same management, the transfer is an incident of service and the same cannot be challenged, unless some mala-fide is attributed against the management or the transfer order is punitive in nature. It is seen from the order that the transfer orders are purely simple transfer and the transfer orders were issued on administrative grounds. It is also well settled that when the transfers are made on administrative grounds, there is no need to give any reason. In this case also, no reason was stated for transferring the petitioners and therefore, it cannot be stated that the order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is a punitive transfer. 11. It is contented by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the petitioner in W.P,(MD)No.5106 of 2009 had made allegations against the 3rd respondent and therefore, the 3rd respondent has got grudge against the petitioners and to settle his score against the petitioners and at his instance, the petitioner and his wife were transferred. When allegations are made attributing mala-fide against the person in management, it is the duty of the person, who is making such allegations to prove the same. In this case, except the allegations made in the affidavit, the petitioners are not able to prove or substantiate the said charges against the 3rd respondent. 12. When allegations are made attributing mala-fide against the person in management, it is the duty of the person, who is making such allegations to prove the same. In this case, except the allegations made in the affidavit, the petitioners are not able to prove or substantiate the said charges against the 3rd respondent. 12. Further, it is stated by the respondents 2 to 4 that not only the petitioners, but other teachers were also transferred along-with the petitioners and that would also prove that the petitioners were not singled out and it is seen from the typed set of papers that along-with the petitioners six other teachers were transferred to various schools. 13. It has been held in the judgment reported in 2003(4) CTC 65 , in the case of The Manger, R.C. Schools, Salem Social Services Society, Alagapuram, Salem and another vs. G.Vicent Paulraj and another, when the management is running various schools in various places and teachers were transferred from one school to another under the same management, the same cannot be questioned. .14. As stated supra, in this case, it is admitted that the petitioners were transferred in the past and they are working in the school from 2003 onward and hence, the management though it fit to transfer the petitioners to their school at Kalpakkam, Further, by reason of the transfer order, it is not stated that the petitioners service condition are affected and unless, the transfer is expressly barred by service conditions, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the same, 15. In the judgment reported in 2007(1) MLJ 463 , in the case of Y.Balachandra Babu and another vs. District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai Educational District and Marthandam, Kanyakumari District & others, it has been held that under provision of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, the corporate body running more than one school should be treated as one unit for the purpose of the Rule relating to qualifications, conditions of service of teachers and other persons employed in the aided private schools and therefore, the order is not against the provision of the Act. The same analogy can be applied to the 2nd respondent school as admittedly, the 2nd respondent is running various schools and in the past, the petitioners were transferred. The same analogy can be applied to the 2nd respondent school as admittedly, the 2nd respondent is running various schools and in the past, the petitioners were transferred. Therefore, in my view, no reason has been stated by the petitioners questioning the order of the transfer and the transfer order is not passed by way of of punishment and it is only a routine transfer made in the course of service and the same cannot be challenged. 116. Hence, the order of transfer passed by the 2nd respondent is upheld and accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.