JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2014 issued by the Registrar, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat transferring, inter alia, the petitioner, who is currently serving as Principal Scientist, AICRP on Vegetables, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat to Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Gossaigaon, he is filing this writ petition for the cancellation thereof. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Senior Technical Assistant at the Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat ("the University" for short) in the year 1987. He was subsequently selected and appointed to the post of Junior Breeder in the following year. The post of Junior Breeder is equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor. In the year 1995, he joined as Assistant Professor of Biswanath Chariali College of Agriculture whereafter he was transferred to Research Station, Golaghat in the year 1996 where he continued his service till 2008. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Scientist, which is equivalent to the rank of Associate Professor and was thereafter transferred to the University as Principal Scientist, which is equivalent to the post of Professor. In the meantime, he had obtained Ph.D. degree from Haryana Agricultural University in the year 1995 in the field of specialization in vegetable breeding. According to him, by dint of his sincere work, he has been able to develop 15 varieties of vegetable crops and, therefore, earned fame for the University, which was appreciated and commended at various national and international fora. Despite the position and status enjoyed by him as Professor and Principal Scientist, the University is not even able to provide a single room as is done in the normally in the case of other Professors thereby forcing him to sit with Laboratory Technicians and other junior staff. To add insult to the injury, around 6 months back, he was arbitrarily asked not to teach the course in which he has the expertise and was instead entrusted with a course about which he is not well-versed. 2. It is the further case of the petitioner that some news items were published in local newspapers containing allegations about the acts of commissions and omissions by the Vice-Chancellor (respondent 2). Respondent 2 on 14.11.2013 held a press meet and denied such allegations and at the same time asserted that the news items were published at the behest of 4 Professors of Assam Agricultural University which included Dr. Respondent 2 on 14.11.2013 held a press meet and denied such allegations and at the same time asserted that the news items were published at the behest of 4 Professors of Assam Agricultural University which included Dr. Umesh Kalita, who happens to be the relative of the petitioner. After publication of the news reports, he was directed to sign a letter in support of respondent No. 2, but he refused to do so. This infuriated the higher echelons of the University, who started targeting the petitioner and this resulted in issuing the impugned transfer order. Contending that the impugned order is illegal and mala fides, the petitioner is, therefore, filing this writ petition for appropriate reliefs. 3. The writ petition is contested by the University through the Joint Registrar (Academic), who has filed his affidavit-in-opposition. The answering respondent denies that 15 varieties were developed by the petitioner and that his works were appreciated or commended by various National and International Fora. Inn fact, the two varieties of Brinjal, namely, JC-1 and JC-2 were merely a selection from the existing germ plasm, where a team of Scientist were involved. He was never serious in multiplying seed of varieties or making available to the farmers for popularizing those varieties. In fact, the Project Coordinator of the All India Coordinated Research Project on Vegetable crops, of Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi wrote to the Director of Research of the University to ask the petitioner to explain as to why AICRP (VC), Centre Data was utilized by him without the permission of the Project Coordinator of Vegetable Crops. In so far as non-provision of single room is concerned, the answering respondent says that most of the Professors in the Department of Horticulture are also sharing rooms due to lack of space. Allotment of course is done by the Head of Department (HOD): he was given the course on Breeding of Horticultural Crops considering his involvement as a Plant Breeder. 4. The answering respondent denies that the said Umesh Kalita along with 3 other Professors were responsible for publication of the news report containing allegations against respondent 2 or that the petitioner was targeted by the upper echelons of the University after he refused to sign the letter supporting respondent 2 which culminated in issuing the impugned transfer order. The answering respondent flatly denies that the transfer order has been issued with ulterior motives. The answering respondent flatly denies that the transfer order has been issued with ulterior motives. The petitioner works in sugarcane crops and he transfer as breeder and not on the basis of crops associated with. As for his claim that he has the expertise in vegetable breeding, the letter dated 20.1.2014 of the Project Coordinator of All India Coordinated Research Project ["AICRP(VC)] on Vegetable crops of the All India Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi addressed to the Director of Research, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat asking him to either issue advisory note to the petitioner for his improvement or change the in-charge of AICRP(VC) by suitable person who can handle the project in a systematic way. The petitioner used to utilize AICRP(VC) data and information of other AICRP(VC) without prior permission of the Project Coordinator. 5. It is the further case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner was transferred to the post in his own rank and pay and his transfer order has no link with the transfer of Dr. Prabali Sharma, who will continue to work in the University, though in a different project, in her own rank and pay. The transfer order has been issued strictly in the interest of the University and in the exigencies of service. No scientist of AICRP is designated as Principal Investigator, but the senior most scientist in the group is identified as In-charge of AICRP for the smooth functioning of the project. The petitioner is not the Principal Investigator of AICRP vegetable crops as claimed by him. The communication dated 13.3.2012 from ICAR funded research programme is not a policy decision binding on the University, but is merely a suggestion. On 17.12.2013, the Chief Scientist of RARS, AAU, Gosaigaon wrote to the Director of Research Agriculture that there is acute shortage of Scientist in the Station, the total number of sanctioned posts of RARS, AAU, Gosaigaon including the Chief Scientist is 26 out of which there are 9 posts of Senior Scientist and 17 posts of Junior Scientist and two Scientist of AICRP on maize at RARS, Gosaigaon. On the basis of request made from RARS, Gosaigaon, one Scientist from each discipline of Entomology, Social Science and Plant Breeding were required to be posted. On the basis of request made from RARS, Gosaigaon, one Scientist from each discipline of Entomology, Social Science and Plant Breeding were required to be posted. Moreover, the performance of AICRP vegetable crops in the Department of Horticulture, Jorhat is very poor as informed by the Project Coordinator of AICRP(VC), Varanasi both verbally and in writing as already noticed. It was the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner is transferred and posted as Principal Scientist at RARS, Gossaigaon. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned transfer order. 6. The main contention of Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer of the petitioner is not in the exigencies of service, but is a vindictive transfer. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is referable to the act of refusal on the part of the petitioner to sign a statement in favour of the respondent No. 2 (Vice-Chancellor) against whom allegations were published in the local newspapers on 11.12.2013. The learned counsel, laying emphasis on the said communication dated 30.3.2012, contends that this contents thereof allows the petitioner to continue the research without being disturbed as otherwise the continuity of the Research Programme and the quality of the Research output is affected. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being replaced by a Junior Scientist, which is not in the cadre of Principal Scientist, yet, the petitioner is, even in the absence of his proper replacement, being transferred to Gosaigaon by way of punishment. Referring to the order dated 6.8.2013 of the respondent No. 2, the learned counsel further submits that the continuation of the respondent No. 6, who is working in the field of Maize and not in the field of vegetable, is likely to jeopardize the Research Programme on vegetables of which the petitioner was the Principal Scientist. He, therefore, submits that the impugned transfer order suffers from many infirmities and cannot be sustained in law. On the other hand, Mr. AC Borbora, the learned senior counsel for the University, vehemently defends the impugned transfer order and submits that the petitioner has been transferred on his own rank and pay. He, therefore, submits that the impugned transfer order suffers from many infirmities and cannot be sustained in law. On the other hand, Mr. AC Borbora, the learned senior counsel for the University, vehemently defends the impugned transfer order and submits that the petitioner has been transferred on his own rank and pay. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner had to be transferred to Gosaigaon as there is acute shortage of Scientists in the Station; the transfer order was thus issued in the interest of University. He, therefore, contends that the transfer order does not suffer from any illegality, procedural impropriety or mala fides and is not liable to be interfered with. 7. The law relating to the transfer of an employee is now firmly settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav, (1995) 3 SCC 270 , the Administrative Tribunal had interfered with the transfer order of the respondent and directed him to be posted at a particular place. It is relevant to note that while setting aside the order of Tribunal, the Apex Court observed in para 4 of its judgment as follows: "4.... The courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officer on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background or foundation. In this case we have seen that on the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place." 9. I may as well refer to the law relating to transfer enunciated by the Apex Court in N.K. Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98 , which are as follows: "23.....Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including 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. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make the decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm of principles governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lacks the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited scrutiny indicated." 9. In the instant case, the question to be determined is as to whether the impugned transfer order is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norms of principle governing the transfer. There is no dispute at the bar that the impugned transfer order is issued by the competent authority. As the case of the petitioner is on mala fides, in order to find out the existence thereof in the impugned order, I have carefully examined the file produced by the learned senior counsel for the respondents and the examination thereof does not bring out any fact from which an inference can be reasonably drawn that the transfer was done with an ulterior motive. On the contrary, as early as 17.12.2013, the Chief Scientist of RARS had requested the respondent No. 4 informing him that there was an acute shortage of scientist in the station for which it was very difficult to run the station smoothly and requested him to deploy scientists of Plant Protection, Plant Pathology, Entomology, Horticulture, Agronomy and Soil Science. The file for transfer of the petitioner and others were processed with effect from 26.12.2013. There is no evidence of manipulation or overwriting in the notes found in the file. What is noteworthy is that the petitioner was not singled out for the transfer. Nevertheless, the petitioner could be right in his perception that the transfer order was issued with an ulterior motive. But then, there is absolutely no evidence to establish the existence of mala fides in the impugned order. What is noteworthy is that the petitioner was not singled out for the transfer. Nevertheless, the petitioner could be right in his perception that the transfer order was issued with an ulterior motive. But then, there is absolutely no evidence to establish the existence of mala fides in the impugned order. There should be adequate materials from which it can be safely concluded that the impugned transfer order is vitiated by mala fides, but the case of the petitioner is conspicuous by the absence of such materials. In the light of the entries in the file, it is difficult to conclude that the transfer of the petitioner was done with an ulterior motive. 10. In so far as the communication dated 30.3.2012 upon which heavy reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the transfer, is concerned, what was stated by the Director & Project Coordinator, AICRP-Weed Control therein is that scientist associated with the project should not be shifted or replaced without any valid reason and without due intimation and consent of the Director & Project Coordinator of the Directorate. However, the fact that such instructions are not mandatory is the concluding part of his communication stating that: "the above suggestions may kindly be kept in mind to improve the work efficiency and output quality of the project". In my opinion, this clinches the issue in favour of the respondent-University. For what has been stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. Misc. Case No. 1544 of 2014 is, therefore, allowed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I pass no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.