JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The Petitioner working as Deputy General Manager, Finance under the Respondent-Corporation is aggrieved by Annexure G/1 office Order No. 193 of 2010 by which he has been transferred from Nagaon Paper Mill to Cachar Paper Mill. According to the Petitioner, the order so issued, is illegal and arbitrary for want of any reasonable basis and also violative of the transfer policy formulated in 1992. It will be appropriate to refer to the particular clauses of the transfer policy on which the Petitioner has placed reliance. Transfer System:- (i) Service of executives are transferable in the exigencies of work in the overall interest of the company. (ii) An executive on transfer shall be entitled to all transfer benefits as per rules of the Corporation. (iii) Service rendered by an executive in a post/scale in the previous Unit/Office shall be reckoned for the purpose of computing his eligibility period for promotion to the next higher post/scale. (iv) Executive who have completed 8 years of continuous service in a Unit/Office/ Subsidiary shall normally be considered for transfer. However, in the exigencies of work an executive will be liable to be transferred to any Unit/Office/Subsidiary at any time. In case there are more than one executive in the same post in the same discipline who have completed more than three years of continuous service in a Unit/Office/Subsidiary the executive who has put in more years in the Unit shall be considered to transfer. (v) An executive on promotion to next higher post shall normally be transferred and placed in another Unit/Subsidiary/Office. (vi) An executive could be considered for transfer to a Unit/Office/Subsidiary, at his request subject to administrative convenience and organizational requirement. However, an executive shall normally be place dint he Unit/Mill/Office of his choice two years before this retirement from service. (vii) Normally, transfer of an employee could be considered at the beginning of academic session as for as practicable. However, when in exigencies of work, an employee is transferred in the middle of the academic sess on he will be allowed to keep his family in his previous place of posting till completion of the academic session. In ease of persons on transfer to North Eastern Region, they shall be allowed to kept their family in the previous place of posting or at the home town for a maximum period of three years. 2. In ease of persons on transfer to North Eastern Region, they shall be allowed to kept their family in the previous place of posting or at the home town for a maximum period of three years. 2. By Annexure C order dated 5.2.2008 the Petitioner was transferred from Cachar Paper Mill, Panehgrarm to Nagaon Paper Mill, Jagiroad. Thus, by the time the impugned transfer order dated 2.11.2010 was issued, the Petitioner had completed about three years of service at Nagaon Paper Mill. 3. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the following grounds: (i) He having left with less than 2 years of service, the authority ought not have transferred him at the fag end of his service career. The order is also violative of aforementioned transfer policy. (ii) The transfer order has been issued not in any public interest or in the exigencies of service. (iii) Minor son and wife of the Petitioner are suffering from various ailments and as such, the authority of the Corporation ought to have considered that aspect of the matter before transferring the Petitioner. (iv) The wife of the Petitioner being pasted at Jagiroad as Lecturer in a college which is also the place of posting of the Petitioner and the old mother of the Petitioner also having stayed with him, the Petitioner has to look after them necessitating his stay along with them. (v) Although the Respondent-Corporation is vested with the power, jurisdiction and competency to transfer its employees, but the same cannot be exercised with absolute or unfettered discretion. (vi) The Petitioner has also contended about the working conditions in both the mills which according to him will not justify his transfer Cachar Paper Mill. 4. While entertaining the writ petition by order dated 22.11.2010, an interim order was passed staying the operation or the impugned order dated 2.11.2010. The Respondent-Corporation has filled Miscellaneous Case No. 3750 of 2010 praying for vacation of the stay order. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation has pressed the said miscellaneous case as the counter affidavit of the Respondent-Corporation as any adjudication on interim prayer will virtually lead to final adjudication of the writ petition. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. 5. I have heard Mr. P.C. Deka along with Mr. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. 5. I have heard Mr. P.C. Deka along with Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Phukan, learned senior Counsel resisted by Mr. J. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation. Both the counsel made their elaborate submissions. While Mr. Deka has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 984 , Andrew Banrilang Umdor vs. State of Meghalaya and other 2007(4) GLT 712; Dayal Das vs. State Assam 2002(2) GLT 109, Mr. Phukan, learned senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions reported in: (1) State Uttar Pradesh vs. Gobordhan Lal, (2004)11 SCC 402 (2) Kalyan Kr. Sarkar vs. Alok Kantt Pal Choudhury, 2006(3) GLT 634 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records produced by the Respondent-Corporation. The decision in Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia (supra), has been pressed into service to emphasize that although the transfer policy does not have any statutory force but in absence of any statutory rule, the said transfer policy in the form of executive/administrative instruction will govern the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation and the Respondent-Corporation cannot deviate from the said transfer guidelines on the plea of same being only directory and not mandatory. In Dayal Das (supra) also. It has been observed that although the transfer guidelines may not have statutory force, but they check arbitrary transfer. In the said case direction was issued to record the reasons justifying the transfer. 7. The decisions on which the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation has placed reliance have been noted above. In Gobardhan Lal (supra), dealing with the scope of interference by the Court, it was held that transfer is prerogative of the authorities concerned and the Court should not normally interfere therewith except when (i) transfer order shown to be initiated by mala fides, or (ii) in violation of any statutory provisions, or (iii) having been passed by an authority not competent to pass such order. It was also observed that allegations of main fides must be based on concrete material and must inspire the confidence of the Court. It was also observed that allegations of main fides must be based on concrete material and must inspire the confidence of the Court. Dialing with the facts involved in the said case, it was held that the writ petition challenging the order of transfer having raised disputed questions of fact, the High Court committed an error in making sweeping observations on the basis of own assessment and laying down the general guidelines relating transfers. 8, In Kalyan Kr. Sarkar (supra) the Division Bench of this Court reiterating the principles to be borne in mind dealing with transfer matter and also dealing with similar transfer policy requiring to normally retain an employee at a place of posting for a period of three years held that the particular office memorandum being merely guidelines, is not enforceable in law and no right can be claimed on the basis of such transfer guidelines. 9. The grounds for judicial review of a transfer and the limits thereof are all now well settled and not in dispute. Transfer of an employee in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including the suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. 10. As has been observed by the Apex Court in N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 98 , the only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or in traction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all establishments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial security. 11. In the instant case, the records have revealed Hint the reasons for transfer of the Petitioner from Nagaon Paper Mill to Cachar Paper Mill is because of the need to place the senior level executive at Cachar Paper Mill to head the Finance Department immediately. 11. In the instant case, the records have revealed Hint the reasons for transfer of the Petitioner from Nagaon Paper Mill to Cachar Paper Mill is because of the need to place the senior level executive at Cachar Paper Mill to head the Finance Department immediately. The reason for transferring the Petitioner from Nagaon Paper Mill to Cachar Paper Mill has been disclosed in the note dated 1.11.2010 endorsed by the competent authority a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the Misc. Case. No. 3750 of 2010. Same is reproduced below: HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LIMITED Corporate Headquarters 75 C, Park Street, Kolkata Dated – 1.11.2010 Sub: Requirement of Head of Department (HOD) of Finance Department at CPM The Finance Department of CPM, is presently headed by Shri Bimal Chandra Handique Senior Manager (Finance), a senior executive at E-5 level. In addition to that, there are two Managers at E-4 level, assisting Shri Handique at CPM. The HOD function presently being handled by Shri Handique will fail vacant consequent upon superannuation of Shri Handique from the services of the Corporation dated 31.1.2011. Further, out of two Managers, one Manager Shri Tapash Bhattacharjee has already resigned from the service of HPC on 26.10.2010 and requested to release him from CPM on 21.1.2011. The other Manager Shri Soumitra Dey is going to be transferred due to immediate requirement of one manager level Executive exclusively to look after accounting in ERP system at CHQ. It is, therefore, essential to place a senior level executive at CPM to head the Finance Department immediately. Accordingly, it is proposed that Shri T.K. Daspurkayastha, who is presently heading Finance Department of NPM as DGM (Finance), may be transferred to CPM with immediate effect keeping in view the present financial and procurement crisis being faced at CPM. Shri Daspurkayastha, being an experienced senior executive in finance and having experience of working at CPM, would be the most suited person to effectively handle the financial activities of the mill, keeping in mind the overall interest of the Corporation. (A.S. Upadhyaya) AGM (HR and ES). 12. Shri Daspurkayastha, being an experienced senior executive in finance and having experience of working at CPM, would be the most suited person to effectively handle the financial activities of the mill, keeping in mind the overall interest of the Corporation. (A.S. Upadhyaya) AGM (HR and ES). 12. The transfer policy referred to above itself envisages that the human resources available with the Corporation is to be utilized to meet the requirement of the mills and the offices keeping in view the interest, of the organization as well as the individual employees concerned as for as practicable through a realistic transfer policy. As disclosed in the miscellaneous case as well as by the records, the Central Headquarter, Kolkata of the Respondent-Corporation took a decision to re-organize the staffing position at mills and the offices of the Corporation amongst available resources at senior level. Therefore, some priority decisions were taken in the senior executive level officers which are indicated in the miscellaneous case. Thus, it cannot be said that the Petitioner alone was picked up for transfer by way of differential treatment. 13. On perusal of the records, nothing is discernible that the Petitioner has been transferred from Nagaon, Paper Mill to Cachar Paper Mill with any mala fide intention. The records rather reveal that the Petitioner, having earlier worked at Cachar Paper Mill and being an expert hand, has been transferred to Cachar Paper Mill as a senior level executive. The decision was taken keeping in view over all interest of the Corporation and to overcome the situation at Cacher Paper Mill with due approval of the competent authority, more particularly us there will be no managerial person at Cachar Paper Mill after January 2011. 14. The grounds of inconvenience which the Petitioner is likely to face in the domestic front in view of transfer to Cachar Paper Mill, needless to any, cannot justify interference with the impugned transfer order. Transfer being an incident of service and the Petitioner having entered into the services of the Corporation in acceptance of such condition of Service, cannot fall back on his alleged inconvenience in the event of being moved out from Nagaon Paper Mill, Jugiroad, i.e., his present place of posting, If such things are given consideration for judicial interference, no executive can take recourse to transfer of its employees even in the exigencies of service and public interest. Such inconvenience are not un exception to the Petitioner alone, but are experienced by all most all the employees. 15. Going to the core issue of the alleged violation of the transfer guidelines, suffice it to say that the said guidelines will have to be read together and cannot read in isolation to one another. Clause 1 of the transfer system provides that services of the executives are transferable in the exigencies of service in the overall interest of the company. Clause 4 provides that the executives who have completed three years of continuous service in a unit/office/subsidiary shall normally be considered for transfer. However, in the exigencies of work an executive will he liable to be transferred at any time. Although the said clause also provides that in case there are more than one executive in the same post, in the same discipline but have completed more than three years of continuous service in a unit/office/subsidiary, the executive who has more years of service shall be considered for transfer. In the instant case as has been disclosed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner himself, therein is no other executive other than the Petitioner in the same post in the same discipline with longer years of service who could be transferred in lieu of the Petitioner. 16. Clause 6 of the transfer policy while providing for consideration for transfer at the request of an executive subject to administrative convenience and Organizational requirement also provides that an executive shall normally be placed in unit/mill/office of his choice two years before his retirement from service, Heavy reliance has been placed on this clause so as to contend that the Petitioner having left with only about two years of service (due to retire on 31.7.2012), the authority ought to have asked him for his choice of posting. Thus, provision will have to be considered keeping in mind the administrative convenience and organizational requirement. As to what is the administrative convenience and organizational requirement, hat been indicated in Annexure 7 note dated 1.11.2010. On perusal of the entire records, there is absolutely no material to suggest that the Petitioner has been picked up for differential treatment and/or the impugned order has been issued in colorable exercise of power. The impugned order is the fall out of the priority decision taken in the senior executive level offices. On perusal of the entire records, there is absolutely no material to suggest that the Petitioner has been picked up for differential treatment and/or the impugned order has been issued in colorable exercise of power. The impugned order is the fall out of the priority decision taken in the senior executive level offices. The Respondent-Corporation has given the instances of transferring other executives who have left, with lees then two years of service. 17. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to interfere with the impugned order dated 2.11.2011. Irrespective of such non-interference, the Respondent-Corporation may consider the fact that the Petitioner is left with less than two years to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2012. Clause 6 of the transfer policy as noted above, provides that an executive shall normally he placed in the unit/mill/office of his choice two years before his retirement, from service. The decision making process toward issuance of the impugned transfer order does not disclose about taking into account that aspect of the matter. It is another thing to say that the said clause will not outweigh the organizational requirement and administrative exigencies requiring an employee to be transferred froth one unit to another, but a consideration, irrespective of the result thereof, may not be said to be out of context. 18. In view of the above, while not interfering with the impugned transferred order it is hereby provided that the authority of the Respondent-Corporation may consider the, above aspect of the matter keeping in mind the fact that the Petitioner is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.2012 and, thus, he is left with less than two years of service. Required consideration be made as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31.1.2011. Depending on the outcome of such consideration, the joining of the Petitioner at Cachar Paper Mill pursuant to the impugned transfer will be governed. 19. The writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.