JUDGMENT : This batch of four writ petitions involving virtually a common question of fact and of law and challenging the legality of the common transfer order dated 21.8.2014 issued by the respondent No.4 were taken up together for hearing and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, I shall first refer to the facts of the case in WP(C) No.4186/2014, decide the same and thereafter, so far as possible, apply my decision to the facts of the remaining three writ petitions. The case of the petitioner in WP(C) No.4186/2014 is that he joined the Assam Agricultural University on 11.01.1983 in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at College of Veterinary Science, Khanapara and was thereafter appointed as Lecturer on 15.01.1983 in the same College. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on 01.01.1986 in the same college and continued to serve in that post till 20.11.1991 when he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor at the Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science, Azad, North Lakhimpur on 21.11.1991 and he remained there in that capacity till February, 1995. In the month of February, 1995, he was transferred as Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Extension Education, College of Veterinary Science, Khanapara and served there in that capacity till 1998. He remained as an Associate Professor of the College till 2002, whereafter he took over the charge of Associate Professor and Head of the Department Extension Education, College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara and continued in that post till 31.12.2003. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Professor on 01.01.2004 and continued to be the Head of the Department of the College till 02.09.2013 till the impugned order was issued. 3. According to the petitioner, while he was serving as an Academician in the Assam Agricultural University, he has guided 17 post-graduate students and actively indulged himself in research activities. The petitioner has co-authored a book titled, "Animals We Domesticate", published by Vigyan Prasar, New Delhi and has published more than 50 standard research papers in nationally and internationally acclaimed journals. The petitioner has written more than 100 professional articles. He claims that he is the only professor in the Department of Extension Education to present a research paper in an International Seminar abroad. The petitioner has written more than 100 professional articles. He claims that he is the only professor in the Department of Extension Education to present a research paper in an International Seminar abroad. The petitioner had received a Gold Medal of Neil Lagerl of Award for best research paper of Indian Veterinary Journal, 1984. He further claims that he is the only expert in the Department of Extension Education to have been invited for evaluation of Ph.D. Scholars as Examiner to the National Institutes and Deemed Universities in addition to the other State Agricultural Universities. Besides this, he claims that he has been associated with many other social activities. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 joined as Vice Chancellor of the Assam Agricultural University (“the University” for short) in 2009. The allegation of the petitioner is that ever since the respondent No.6 joined the post of Vice Chancellor, he has committed gross and rampant irregularities and illegalities, which are widely published in newspapers. In fact, prominent citizens of Assam have submitted a Memorandum bearing dated 23.11.2013 to the Chancellor of the University requesting him to take action against the respondent No. 6 for such acts of omission or commission. However, the State Government has turned a blind eye to such corrupt activities of the respondent No.6: as a matter of facts, he has been appointed for a second term. According to the petitioner, some of the lecturers including him have raised their voices against the illegal activities of the respondent No.6 and have also obtained many official documents to substantiate the irregularities and illegalities committed by the respondent No.6, but no action has been taken by the Government till now. It is the case of the petitioner that he is being targeted by the respondent No.6 as he is a member of such group raising their voices against him. When the term of respondent No.6 expired on 26.7.2014, the respondent authorities made the procedure for the new selection process of Vice Chancellor tailor-made for the respondent No.6 so that he was again appointed as Vice Chancellor: in fact, he was eventually appointed in such a manner on 1.8.2014 even though he is not eligible for the second term. 4. When the term of respondent No.6 expired on 26.7.2014, the respondent authorities made the procedure for the new selection process of Vice Chancellor tailor-made for the respondent No.6 so that he was again appointed as Vice Chancellor: in fact, he was eventually appointed in such a manner on 1.8.2014 even though he is not eligible for the second term. 4. Aggrieved by the re-appointment of the respondent No.6 as the Vice-Chancellor, Sri Rajendra Nath Borpuzari and Sri Nikunja Chandra Deka, Professors of the University challenged the appointment of the respondent No.6 before this Court in WP(C) No.3776//2014, which is still pending for disposal. The prayer therein is for issuance of certiorari to quash his selection and appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of the University. Another WP(C) No.3996/2014 was filed by one Sri Umesh Chandra Kalita, Professor of the University by challenging the Notification dated 25.7.2014 allowing the respondent No.6 to continue in the office of the Vice Chancellor after expiry of his term. According to the petitioner, he along with few other Professors of the University are morally supporting the cause espoused by the three writ petitioners with the result that all these Professors including the petitioner are now being targeted for victimization by the respondent No.6. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3, in retaliation, issued the impugned order of transferring him and three other Professors, who have also filed the said three separate writ petitions, transferring them to Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science, North Lakhimpur as Professor. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the transfer order is punitive in nature and is mala fide and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, he has been transferred to the Department of Extension Education, Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science, which started functioning from 1988, but was de-recognized by the Veterinary Council of India from the year 1996, and as on date, there is no student in that College. Thus, according to the petitioner, he is transferred to a College where there is no work to perform. According to the petitioner, the impugned transfer order was issued at the behest of the respondent No. 6, who wants to settle personal score with him for raising his voice against his (respondent 6) illegal activities and also for supporting the cause of other Professors. 4. The writ petition is contested by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the impugned transfer order was issued at the behest of the respondent No. 6, who wants to settle personal score with him for raising his voice against his (respondent 6) illegal activities and also for supporting the cause of other Professors. 4. The writ petition is contested by the respondents. The affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 seeks to justify the impugned transfer order on the following grounds: a) Under the Assam Agricultural University, there were two colleges of Veterinary Science, one at Khanapara, Guwahati and the other one at North Lakhimpur. However, on an inspection made by the Veterinary Council of India (VCI), it was found that the College of Veterinary Science at North Lakhimpur lacks the required infrastructure and manpower and, accordingly, the recognition granted to the college was withdrawn. Consequently, the College of Veterinary Science at North Lakhimpur was closed in the year, 2005. b) In order to start the Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science, necessary steps were initiated during the year 2013. In fact, reference may be drawn of an instruction dated 30.08.2011, as per which it has been provided that proposals for opening of new Veterinary Colleges is to be submitted along with NOC from the concerned State Government as well as justification for establishing a college and a detail proposal. In response to a letter submitted by the Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Assam Agriculture University, the Veterinary Council of India on 05.04.2013 informed that no proposal has been received from the Central Government in respect of Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science. Accordingly, it was instructed to send detail proposal for opening of Veterinary College to the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India through the University as provided in the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. As per the said letter, the proposal should indicate inter alia available physical facilities in terms of infrastructure and manpower of both teaching and non-teaching as per Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education Regulations, 2008. c) As directed by the aforesaid letter dated 05.04.2013, all possible efforts were made to improve the infrastructure and thereafter on 24.02.2014 a status report was prepared. c) As directed by the aforesaid letter dated 05.04.2013, all possible efforts were made to improve the infrastructure and thereafter on 24.02.2014 a status report was prepared. The said status report clearly reveals that all the infrastructure facilities have already been developed in the Department of Animal Husbandry Extension, there was no manpower available in the posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor, besides non-teaching staff. The instant case relates to transfer to the Department of Animal Husbandry Extension. d) In the month of July 2014, a team of VCI visited Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science. Although the said team was satisfied with the physical facilities but insisted on manning and putting faculty members so as to facilitate grant of recognition of the college. The said team also wanted a proof showing that faculties have been recruited or placed through transfer. In fact, on behalf of the University, a letter of commitment dated 16.07.2014 was submitted to the VCI inspection team. The said letter of commitment clearly mentioned that recruitment for faculty will be made within first week of August 2014. Moreover, interviews were being held w.e.f. 21.07.2014. In the recruitment process, which has already been completed, out of 30 recommended candidates for appointment as Assistant Professors, 17 candidates were appointed as Assistant Professor at Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science vide order dated 31.07.2014. e) For the post of Professor, it was decided by the University to re-employ some retired Professors and transfer few Professors, including the petitioner. This was done for the interest of the college and to fulfill the requirement of VCI, which is taking up the issue of recognition of the college in the next month. In this regard, reference may be made of orders dated 21.08.2014 by which 4 retired teachers have been reappointed as Professors in four different departments of Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science. By one of such order, two retired teachers have been engaged as guest faculty in the said college and by the order impugned 4 Professors, including the petitioner have been transferred and posted at the said college. It is pertinent to mention herein that out of the said four persons who were reappointed, 2 have already joined on 25.08.2014. By one of such order, two retired teachers have been engaged as guest faculty in the said college and by the order impugned 4 Professors, including the petitioner have been transferred and posted at the said college. It is pertinent to mention herein that out of the said four persons who were reappointed, 2 have already joined on 25.08.2014. f) Since upon issuance of the orders of appointments, reappointment and transfer, the assurance given to the VCI inspection team was completed, and the Secretary, VCI, was duly intimated about the same vide letter dated 26.08.2014. In this regard reference may also be drawn to the extract of the proceedings of the 236th meeting of the Board of Management of the University held on 18.06.2014. In the said proceeding, the Board approved the proposal of transfer after 3 years of service in a particular station/location. According to the answering respondents, the petitioner has been serving in the same station/location i.e., at College of Veterinary Science, Khanapara since the year 1995 and, as such, by now he has completed 19 years of service in the same station. 5. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and other materials on record. The contention of Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel, is that the impugned order smacks of malice on the part of the respondent No.6 and is, liable to be quashed as evident from the following facts and circumstances: 1) No student has so far been enrolled in the Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Joying, North Lakhimpur and, therefore, no exigency in any sense of the term warrants his transfer at Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science; 2) The subjects on which he has expertise, will be taught in the 3rd year and 5th year and, therefore, there could not be any reason for his transfer to the Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science; 3) He has been transferred in the post of Professor but there is no post of professor at Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science and, as such, the impugned order dated 21.08.2014 is on non-existent ground; 4) He is among the two Professors in the Department of Extension Education, College of Veterinary Science, Khanapara who have completed their Ph.D. programme with course work as well as thesis and all other Professors of the Department have completed Ph.D. under traditional system. The other professor who has completed his Ph.D. with course work has been promoted to the post of Associate Director, Extension Education and he takes only few Post Graduate Courses and, therefore, the petitioner is only Professor of the Department who has been exposed to highest level of course work in Ph.D. programme and as such, he is well positioned than any other professor of the department. The petitioner would like to add that the requirement and necessity of the petitioner is more in the Khanapara campus where courses for Post Graduate Programme are also taught vis-a-vis the College at Lakhimpur where only graduate courses would be taught provided Veterinary Council of India provides recognition and thereafter students are enrolled; 5) Two Assistant Professors, Dr. Bikash Borthakur and Dr. L. Sanathoi Khuman, were appointed recently in the Lakhimpur College but they have been transferred and attached to the Department of Extension Education, College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara only a week back and, therefore, if at all there is any exigency and requirement of teachers at Lakhimpur, these two Assistant Professors should have been retained; 6) He is presently guiding three Ph.D. scholars and two Master Degree students. Moreover, two Master Degree students have submitted their thesis and their viva-voce is yet to be conducted. Therefore, his transfer would also cause hardships and unsettle the academic career of these students; 7) Other teachers of the department have not been exposed to Ph.D. level course work and as such none of the teachers in the department is competent to take a few vital courses in Ph.D. programme including the subject of Research Technology which are very vital for excellence in Highest Degree Programme. Therefore, the requirement of the petitioner is more at the Khanapara campus than at the Lakhimpur campus; 8) One Associate Professor, namely, Dr. Therefore, the requirement of the petitioner is more at the Khanapara campus than at the Lakhimpur campus; 8) One Associate Professor, namely, Dr. Uma Kanta Tarnuli has been serving in the Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science to meet the nominal needs of Extension Education Department and, there is, therefore, no reason for transferring the petitioner to this College; 9) The policy of transfer mandates that one is transferred in place of other but in the case of the petitioner as in the case of the other professors, who have been transferred along with the petitioner vide the same order dated 21.08.2014, they have not been transferred to occupy the posts which is already being manned by others and since there are no students, there is no academic assignment for the petitioner at Lakhimpur Campus; 10) The teachers, who teach courses in the first year, have not been transferred but the petitioner who has expertise in a course which is taught in the third year has been transferred and, the order dated 21-8-2014, therefore, smacks of malafide; 11) The Lakhimpur College has been de-recognized in the year 1996 and no students are being admitted and, therefore, the transfer order dated 21.08.2014 is vindictive in nature; 12) If the senior teachers are so much required at Lakhimpur College, then other senior teachers whose subjects are to be taught from the very first year should have also been transferred and since senior teachers of only four departments are transferred, the same smacks of malafide and arbitrary and capricious exercise of power by the respondent No. 6; and 13) There is no transfer policy of the University and the Order dated 21.08.2014 has been passed on the basis of whims and caprices of the respondent No. 6. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner is filing this writ petition for quashing the impugned order. 6. Per contra, Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam “AAG” for shoert), denies the allegations of irregularities and illegalities against the Vice Chancellor and submits that they have no relevancy with the transfer of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner has been transferred for the interest and requirement of faculty members in the newly established Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science (LCVSC). According to him, the petitioner has been transferred for the interest and requirement of faculty members in the newly established Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science (LCVSC). In this connection, submits the learned AAG, the Associate Dean, LCVSC, AAU, North Lakhimpur on 8.8.2014 put a note for requirement of the post of Professors and Assistant Professors for functioning of the college and to fulfill the VCI requirements and that it is on the basis of such requirements that the petitioner has been transferred to the Lakhimpur Colleg of Veterinary Science and there is, thus, no mala fide in transferring the petitioner to Lakhimpur College. As far as the allegation made against the Vice Chancellor, he maintains that the petitioner is put to the strictest proof thereof. Against the memorandum submitted to the Vice Chancellor of the University, clarification was sought from the University, which has been submitted and was accepted by the Vice Chancellor. There is no record to show that the petitioner along with some professors raised their voices against the so called gross and rampant illegalities committed by the respondent No.6. The petitioner was not successful in getting selected in the post of Associate Director for which he joined other unsuccessful candidates and vested interest persons, who are repeatedly filing cases against the respondent No.6 with evil intention and motive. According to the learned AAG, the petitioner joined the group of persons, who are repeatedly filing cases against the respondent No.6, after getting the impugned transfer order so as to make out a case of mala fide. The Lakhimpur Veterinary Science college was derecognized by the VCI because of non-fulfillment of minimum criteria including that of manpower, and now that the infrastructure facilities are rebuilt, minimum manpower is to be placed as per VCI requirement for getting the recognition. In fact, argues the learned AAG, students for the current academic session have been already provisionally selected and shall be admitted in that college immediately after receiving VCI recognition, which depends on the proof that the University has placed the required manpower in that college. The learned AAG maintains that the petitioner was transferred considering the requirement of VCI and not for any other reason. Two Assistants Teachers appointed at Lakhimpur College are attached to Khanapara College of Veterinary Science, which is now to be indicated to VCI together with placement of Professors. The learned AAG maintains that the petitioner was transferred considering the requirement of VCI and not for any other reason. Two Assistants Teachers appointed at Lakhimpur College are attached to Khanapara College of Veterinary Science, which is now to be indicated to VCI together with placement of Professors. Since the clearance has not yet been received from the VCI, the University has relocated the services of some of the Assistant Professors to the Khanapara campus of the University. Similarly, the Professors including the petitioner so transferred should be indicated to the VCI and till the receipt of the recognition from the BCI, their services shall also be utilized in the Khanapara campus of the University. As regards guiding Ph.D scholars and Master Degree students by the petitioner, for their viva-voce, the petitioner can easily come from North Lakhimpur. The learned AAG denies that other teachers of the department have not been exposed to Ph.D level course and the requirement of the petitioner is more at the Khanapara campus and also denies that there are two other teachers who are exposed to Ph.D. level course, namely, Dr. Borgohain, Head of the Extension Division and Dr. Hazarika, Assoicate Director of Extension. 7. It is also contended by the learned AAG that the necessity in transferring the employees is best understood by the employer, and the employee cannot dictate and decide for their posting. Regarding the service of Dr. Uma Kanta Tamuli, Associate Professor, the learned AAG points out that Dr. Tamuli is looking after the Animal Farm and fodder plots and, moreover, the issue involved is not about who can do what work but the issue is of getting clearance from the VCI, which is above an employee’s interest to say and serve at Guwahati. The petitioner has to be transferred to Lakhimpur College in order to start the college at Lakhimpur and get the approval of VCI. As regards enrolment of students and academic assignment is concerned, it is stated by the learned AAG that the moment the VCI clearance is received, students will be admitted by October, 2014. It is contended by the learned AAG that the teachers who teach in the 1st year have also been transferred and senior teachers have been re-employed to man the post of Professor needed for 1st year. It is contended by the learned AAG that the teachers who teach in the 1st year have also been transferred and senior teachers have been re-employed to man the post of Professor needed for 1st year. It is stated by the learned AAG that there is no illegality, arbitrariness and mala fide in passing the transfer order, nor are any fundamental or legal rights of the petitioner infringed by the transfer order. On the contrary, the transfer order has been issued in accordance with the norms and parameters related to service jurisprudence and, hence, the petitioner has miserably failed to make out any case for interference of this Court. These are the sums and substances of the case of the learned AAG appearing for the respondent authorities. 8. Undoubtedly, the courts or tribunals are notthe appellate fora to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. Ordinarily, 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. I am also not unmindful of the settled position of law that allegations of mala fides must inspire confidence and ought not to be entertained on the mere asking of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference would ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that direct evidence are hard to come by to prove mala fides, and, therefore, such prove can be possible mostly by circumstantial evidence. In this context, the observations of the Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592 are instructive. This is what it said: “16. Indisputably, an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground germane for passing an order of transfer i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.” 9. The question to be determined now is whether, on the facts and circumstances pleaded by the parties, the impugned transfer order is passed in lieu of punishment. I have perused the notings in the original file relating to the impugned transfer order placed before me by the learned AAG. I must say that there is apparently nothing on record remotely suggesting therein that the transfer of the petitioner has been effected by way of punishment: the transfer appears to be innocuous in nature. It looks like a bona fide exercise of power by the respondent authorities. However, in view of the nature of allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition, I decide to lift what they call the “corporate veil” to go to the bottom of the matter. In the first place, I cannot but take notice of the failure of the respondent No. 2 to file his affidavit-in-opposition even though he has also been impleaded as the respondent No. 6 by name, more so, when allegations of mala fides are made against him personally. In the absence of rebuttal by him by filing a counter-affidavit, the allegations made against him can be accepted to be true: admitted facts need not be proved. 10. In the absence of rebuttal by him by filing a counter-affidavit, the allegations made against him can be accepted to be true: admitted facts need not be proved. 10. That apart, it is on record that no proposal for recognition of the College, which had been de-recognized earlier, was received by the Veterinary Council of India (VCI) from the Central Government till 5-4-2013 and even if the recognition is granted, the same will be granted only for the next academic session commencing only from July-August, 2015. Moreover, the averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition that no student has been enrolled in the College till now, has not been disputed by the respondent authorities. If that is the case, where is the need to transfer the petitioner to such College where there are no students presently? In this connection, the answering respondents at paragraph 10 of their affidavit state that “[S]ince the clearance has not yet been received from the VCI, the University has put back the services of some of the Assistant Professors named by the petitioner (i.e. Dr. Bikash Borthakur and Dr. L. Sanathoi Khuman) in the Khanapara campus of the university. Similarly, the Professors including the petitioner so transferred shall be indicated to the VCI and till the receipt of recognition from the VCI, their services shall be utilized in the Khanapara campus of the University.” In other words, the impugned transfer order appears to have been ordered not for the purpose of teaching works but merely for “indicating” them to the VCI, whatever that may mean. 11. The fact that no teaching works are being carried on in the College is also demonstrated by the relocation of the services of Dr. Bikash Borthakur and Dr. L. Sanathoi Khuman to the Khanapara Campus of the University. If the staffing pattern requires such transfer as per VCI Regulations, what is the necessity of relocating the two Assistant Professors named above to the Khanapara Campus? If the services of these two Assistant Professors can be relocated to Khanapara campus, I am at a loss to understand as to why the services of the petitioners cannot also be relocated to the Khanapara Campus. Allegations of mala fides can seldom be proved by direct evidence but they can nevertheless be proved by circumstantial evidence. If the services of these two Assistant Professors can be relocated to Khanapara campus, I am at a loss to understand as to why the services of the petitioners cannot also be relocated to the Khanapara Campus. Allegations of mala fides can seldom be proved by direct evidence but they can nevertheless be proved by circumstantial evidence. In my opinion, the transfer order attracts the principle of malice in law inasmuch as it was based on an irrelevant or non-existent ground. In other words, from the indisputable facts and circumstances on record, the inference is irresistible and the conclusion inescapable that the impugned transfer has been effected in lieu of punishment: this is nothing but malice in law. Once it is reasonably demonstrated by proved circumstances that the impugned transfer order has been issued in lieu of punishment or is otherwise on irrelevant ground, this Court has no alternative but to interfere with such transfer order. 12. Finally, it is argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that this Court in the judgment dated 6-8-2014 in WP(C) No. 786 of 2014 and as upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 277 of 2014, in a similar case, had declined to interfere with the transfer order of Senior Technical Assistant at the same University, and, as such, this writ petition must also meet the same fate. I have carefully gone through the judgment in question and am unable to persuade myself to hold that the two cases are all on fours. In that case, mala fide could not be proved by the petitioner therein. Moreover, in the instant case, the petitioners are able to prove malice in law in the impugned transfer order. It is interesting to note that specific allegations of male fides were made against the Vice-Chancellor of the University by impleading him by name as the respondent No. 6, but he did not bother to file any affidavit denying such personal allegations: none but the respondent No. 6 can rebut or answer such personal allegations. This alone can make all the difference, but as already noticed, there are more than one reason for holding that malice in law, if not malice in fact, has been demonstrated by the petitioners. In the view that I have taken, the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 786 of 2014 is clearly distinguishable. 13. This alone can make all the difference, but as already noticed, there are more than one reason for holding that malice in law, if not malice in fact, has been demonstrated by the petitioners. In the view that I have taken, the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No. 786 of 2014 is clearly distinguishable. 13. In WP(C) No. 4481 of 2014, the petitioner is equally aggrieved by the impugned common transfer order dated 21-8-2014. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Principal Scientist of Goat Research Station, Assam Agriculture University, Burnihat since 9-9-2010. He used to work as Assistant Professor of Department of Pharmacology & Toxilogy, College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agriculture University, Khanapara from 9-10-1998 to 30-6-2008 and as Professor at the Department of Pharmacology & Technology at the same College from 1-7-2008 to 23-7-2009 and as Professor at Animal Husbandry Department, Biswanath College of Agriculture from 24-7-2009 to 8-9-2010. It is claimed by him that he has published around 18 articles in National and International Journals, and has contributed a Chapter in Vety Textbook of Pharmacology, and is an active member of the Editorial Board of American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences, etc. The contentions of the petitioner in challenging the legality of the common transfer order are no different from the contentions urged by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4186, and are, therefore, not necessary to reproduce them here. For the reasons stated in WP(C) No. 4186 of 2014, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner must meet the same fate. 13. In WP(C) No. 4487 of 2014, the petitioner is said to be the senior most Professor of the Assam Agriculture University, which he joined on 9-10-1976 as a Lecturer: he was promoted to the rank of Professor in the University on 29-5-1997. He was the Head of the Department of Poultry Science, CVSc, Khanapara for 12 years from 2000 to 2012. The petitioner claims to have published papers and has been active in social works and is a Life Member of the Indian Poultry Science Association, Assam Science Society and Blue Cross Society. He is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21-8-2014 transferring him to Institutional Livestock Farm Complex, LCVs, AAU, Joyhing, North Lakhimpur as Professor. He is challenging the impugned transfer order on the same grounds as in the previous writ petitions. He is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21-8-2014 transferring him to Institutional Livestock Farm Complex, LCVs, AAU, Joyhing, North Lakhimpur as Professor. He is challenging the impugned transfer order on the same grounds as in the previous writ petitions. Therefore, as in the previous cases, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed. 14. In WP(C) No. 4470 of 2014, the petitioner is serving as Professor in the Department of Microbiology, CVSc, AAU, Khanapara and is transferred to Lakhimpur College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Joyhing, North Lakhminpur in the post of Professor, Department of Microbiology. According to him, he has published 13 Research papers, two popular articles, attended eight National Seminars and has also handled research projects funded by the National Agricultural Technology Project under ICAR from 2001 to 2004. He is aggrieved by the same common transfer order on the same grounds as in the previous writ petitions. As in the previous three writ petitions, the impugned transfer order dated 21-8-2014 is not sustainable in law and is, therefore, liable to be interfered with. 15. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, the impugned common transfer order dated 21-8-2014 issued by the respondent No. 4 (Annexure-4) transferring all the four writ petitioners is, therefore, quashed. However, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.