JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General assisted by Shri A. Viscount as well as Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Both the writ petitions arises out of the same set of facts and therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. W.P. (C) No. 77 of 2015: 3. By the present writ petition, the transfer and posting order dated 10-10-2014 has been questioned by the petitioner on the ground of being an outcome of malafide exercise of power. 3.1. According to the petitioner, while he was serving as Lecturer (SG)/Associate Professor in Economics at Hill College, Tadubi, he was transferred and posted as Principal (i/c), Hill College, Tadubi vide order dated 16-09-2011 issued by the Under Secretary (Higher Edn.), Government of Manipur and since then the petitioner has been continuously serving in the said capacity. While the petitioner was serving in that capacity, the Director, University and Higher Education addressed a letter dated 14-11-2014 to all Principals, Hill Government Colleges in Manipur and other concerned authorities stating therein that all Assistant/Associate Professors appointed/regularised prior to 29-10-2014 might exercise option for consideration of transfer and posting in any of the Government Colleges and in response thereto, the petitioner as Principal, Hill College addressed a letter dated 22-11-2014 to the Director, University & Higher Education submitting therewith 10 option forms for Assistant/Associate professors including the petitioner who opted to continue serving as Principal (i/c), Hill College. Without any reference to the said letter dated 22-11-2014, the Director, University & Higher Education addressed another letter dated 25-11-2014 to all the Principals, Hill Government Colleges for re-submitting their options. 3.2. While the petitioner was serving as Principal (i/c), Hill College, Tadubi, the Deputy Secretary (Higher Edn.), Government of Manipur issued an order/back-dated order dated 10-10-2014 thereby transferring and posting the petitioner as Associate Professor (Economics), D.M. College of Commerce and the respondent No. 4, Shri Dr. Lokhol Singh, Associate Professor (Chemistry), Thoubal College as i/c Principal, Hill College, Tadubi. 3.2. While the petitioner was serving as Principal (i/c), Hill College, Tadubi, the Deputy Secretary (Higher Edn.), Government of Manipur issued an order/back-dated order dated 10-10-2014 thereby transferring and posting the petitioner as Associate Professor (Economics), D.M. College of Commerce and the respondent No. 4, Shri Dr. Lokhol Singh, Associate Professor (Chemistry), Thoubal College as i/c Principal, Hill College, Tadubi. The alleged transfer and posting order dated 10-10-2014 was/is not served upon the petitioner and accordingly, the moment the petitioner came to know about the said order dated 10-10-2014 of his transfer and posting from some reliable sources, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 10-12-2014 to the Director, University & Higher Education, Government of Manipur, requesting him to revoke the said transfer & posting order. The Students' Union of the Hill College, Tadubi also raised objection to the said transfer & posting order in the form of press release dated 08-12-2014, memorandum dated 11-12-2014 and press conference dated 12-12-2014. 3.3. As the State respondents failed to cancel the transfer and posting order dated 10-10-2014, the General Secretary, Hill College Students' Union submitted a representation dated 14-01-2015 to the Hon'ble Minister, Higher and Technical Education, Manipur for cancellation of the said transfer & posting order. At that point of time, while the petitioner was continuing as Principal (i/c), Hill College, the Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur issued an official letter dated 16-01-2015 appointing the petitioner as Secretary of Tadubi Private Centre for the Higher Secondary Examination, 2015 in public interest. Being aggrieved by the non-action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner submitted a representation, through proper channel, addressed to the respondent No. 1 for reviewing their cancellation and transfer order but the said representation is still pending for consideration by the respondents. Since the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 had not been cancelled and the petitioner being apprehensive that he was likely to be ousted from being the i/c Principal, Hill College by implementing the impugned order, the petitioner filed the present petition praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. W.P. (C) No. 138 of 2015: 4. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the Government order dated 31-01-2015 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Hr. & Tech. Edn.) whereby the joining report/self charge taking of the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Tadubi was accepted with effect from the date of joining. 4.1. W.P. (C) No. 138 of 2015: 4. The present writ petition has been filed questioning the Government order dated 31-01-2015 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Hr. & Tech. Edn.) whereby the joining report/self charge taking of the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Tadubi was accepted with effect from the date of joining. 4.1. The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 77 of 2015 are that on 30-01-2015, this court while issuing notice to the respondents, had passed an interim order to the effect that the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 should remain stayed. On 06-02-2015, when the above writ petition was listed again after notice, the Senior Government Advocate produced before this court a copy of the order dated 30-01-2015 stating therein that the State Government had already accepted the joining report/self charge taking of the respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30-01-2015, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 is a backdated order only to serve the interest of the respondent No. 4 and it is not an order of transfer and posting but an order of appointing the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Hill College, in the guise of a transfer order, though he is not qualified for being appointed as Principal, Government Colleges for the reason that he has not been appointed as Research Guide. It is further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, malafide, unreasonable and illegal in that the State respondents failed to follow the transfer policy on the basis of which the exercise of options had already been called for by the Director of University & Higher Education. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the transfer and posting of any incumbent including the post of Principal-in-charge is a general policy of the State Government and there is no hard and fast rule that a teacher who is posted in particular college cannot be transferred or posted to any other college. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the transfer and posting of any incumbent including the post of Principal-in-charge is a general policy of the State Government and there is no hard and fast rule that a teacher who is posted in particular college cannot be transferred or posted to any other college. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no accrued right to continue serving as Principal-in-charge of the college and moreover, since the joining of the respondents No. 4 having been accepted on 31-01-2015, he is still functioning as i/c Principal, Hill College. Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4, relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, has submitted that since the respondent No. 4 is senior to the petitioner, there is no illegality in allowing him to hold the charge of the Principal, Hill College and the respondent No. 4 is qualified for being appointed as i/c Principal as is evident from the Notification dated 03-02-2014 of the MPSC and is an approved Research Guide. It is further submitted by him that the petitioner has no indefeasible right to be posted at a particular posting of his choice indefinitely and as the respondent No. 4 was released from the Thoubal College on 15-12-2014, he took self-charge of the Office of the Principal, Hill College by signing TR - 1 on 16-12-2014 which was accepted vide order dated 31-01-2015 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Hr. Edn.), Govt. of Manipur. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is still holding the post of i/c Principal without any break and interruption and the petitioner is not yet released by the respondents/State Government in any manner. It is also stated that the alleged transfer of respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Hill College is not made in general public interest and the allegation that the self charge taking of the respondent No. 4 has been accepted is denied because the same being done against the rules and signing of TR - 1 with official seal of the Principal, Hill College, without handing over and taking over charge, is an illegal act. 6. 6. From the facts and circumstances of the present case, the questions of law that arise for consideration by this court are as under: "a) Whether the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 is a transfer order simpliciter or not? b) Whether the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 is an order of appointment of the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Hill College in the guise of a transfer order or not and if yes, whether the respondent No. 4 is qualified for being appointed as i/c Principal, Hill College? c) Whether the transfer and posting order dated 10-10-2014, impugned herein, is a backdated order or not?" 7. Admittedly the transfer and posting is the domain and prerogative of the State Government and the courts shall not interfere with it except in cases where the transfer order has been issued in violation of the provisions of a rule or on the ground of malafide. In this regard, some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which both the parties have no disagreement and have relied upon, may be referred to. In fact, both parties have cited many rulings, out of which only few are relevant for purpose of deciding the issues involved herein and therefore, all have not been referred to herein. In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & ors. v. State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "The courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to another. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights." In the case of N.K Singh v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "6.....the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequences on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of malafide and violation of any specific provision..." In the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of UP reported in (2003) 4 SCC 104 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "37. Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by the courts. This court consistently has been taking a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner." In the case of State of UP & ors. v. Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "7..... Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a malafide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made...." In the case of Tejshree Ghag & ors. v. Prakash Parshuram Patil and ors. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 220 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "An order of transfer ordinarily should be in terms of the existing rules. Transfer may even incidental to the conditions of service, but thereby nobody can be deprived of his existing rights. Existence of a power and exercise thereof are two different concepts. An executive power in absence of any statutory rules cannot be exercised which would result in civil or penal consequences. Such exercise of power must, moreover, be bonafide. It cannot be done for unauthorised purpose. An executive order passed for unauthorised purpose would amount to malice in law. An order of transfer cannot prejudicially affect the status of an employee. If orders of transfer substantially affect the status of an employee, the same would be violative of the conditions of service and thus, illegal. Transfers must be made to an equivalent post." In the case of Prashar Bharti & ors. v. Amarjeet Singh & ors. An order of transfer cannot prejudicially affect the status of an employee. If orders of transfer substantially affect the status of an employee, the same would be violative of the conditions of service and thus, illegal. Transfers must be made to an equivalent post." In the case of Prashar Bharti & ors. v. Amarjeet Singh & ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 539 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "...Transfer is limited to equivalent post in the same cadre and in the same department...." In the case of Rajendra Singh & ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in terms of the appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires." From the above decisions, the law being settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be summarised that a Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice and that he is liable to be transferred to other place also. An order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with by the court unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a malafide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision or passed by an authority not competent to do so. In the present case, the allegation is that the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 is a backdated one, being issued in malafide exercise of power. 8. The first two issues are related each other and therefore, the same are being considered together. In the present case, the allegation is that the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 is a backdated one, being issued in malafide exercise of power. 8. The first two issues are related each other and therefore, the same are being considered together. As regards these issues, Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not an order of transfer but an order of appointing the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Hill College in the guise of a transfer order and the respondent No. 4 is not qualified for such appointment. On the other hand, Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Advocate General have submitted that the impugned order is a transfer order and since no right of the petitioner has been infringed by the said transfer order, this court may not interfere with it. It is also submitted by the said learned counsels that the respondent No. 4 is qualified for being appointed as i/c Principal, Hill College. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is no doubt true that the words "transfer and posting" have been used in it. But considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 is not in effect a transfer order but an order appointing the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Hill College in the guise of a transfer order for the simple reason that transfer is permissible only in the same cadre as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. The cadre of Associate Professor and that of the Principal are different and not transferable. Had the respondent No. 4 been transferred first as Associate Professor in the Hill College and then, allowed to be posted as i/c Principal, Hill College, there would have been no problem. The cadre of Associate Professor and that of the Principal are different and not transferable. Had the respondent No. 4 been transferred first as Associate Professor in the Hill College and then, allowed to be posted as i/c Principal, Hill College, there would have been no problem. But it is not done so in the present case and it cannot be done also because there is no Department of Chemistry at the Hill College, as contended by the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner but not rebutted by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents and therefore, the transfer of the respondent No. 4 as Associate Professor in Chemistry in the Hill College is not possible at all nor can he be appointed as i/c Principal, Hill College in the guise of transfer order. As has been stated above, the cadre of Principal is different from that of Associate Professor and even for appointment as i/c Principal, all eligible persons ought to have been considered as mandated in Article 16 of the Constitution. But in the present case, the fact that none of the eligible persons has been considered for being appointed as i/c Principal, Hill College and only the respondent No. 4 was considered and appointed the same day itself, at an high and unusual speed, shows the malafide exercise of power with the intention of the State Government to favour the respondent No. 4. 9. One of the contentions of Shri I. Lalitkumar, the learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 is not qualified to be appointed as Principal due to non-fulfilment of the essential qualifications prescribed in the Advertisement No. 3 of 2013 dated 27-08-2013 of the MPSC. However, Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that pursuant to the said advertisement, the MPSC has issued a notification dated 03-02-2014 notifying the list of candidates who possessed educational qualifications for the post of Principal including the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. However, Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that pursuant to the said advertisement, the MPSC has issued a notification dated 03-02-2014 notifying the list of candidates who possessed educational qualifications for the post of Principal including the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. This rival contention need not be gone into because the subject matter in issue in the present case is not as regards the regular appointment of a Principal and moreover, when the DPC was held for appointment of Principals of Government Colleges on regular basis, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were not found fit for being appointed as Principals for want of API score. 10. One point which Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Advocate General have emphasised is that both the Government order dated 16-09-2011 and the impugned Government order dated 10-10-2014 are in the same line and when the petitioner is not aggrieved by the order dated 16-09-2011, there is no reason as to why he should have any grievance against the impugned order. This point has no substance at all. By this Government order dated 16-09-2011, the petitioner while serving as Associate Professor, Hill College was allowed to function as i/c Principal of the same Hill College and there is nothing wrong in that. But so far as the impugned order is concerned, the respondent No. 4, an Associate Professor in Chemistry serving in Thoubal College whose transfer as Associate Professor in the Hill College is impermissible for want of his subject's department, is appointed as i/c Principal, Hill College without giving an equal opportunity to all eligible persons and in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. Moreover, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an employee working on in-charge basis cannot be replaced by another on in-charge basis. In view of the above, this court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, the first two issues have been decided in favour of the petitioner. 11. In view of the above, this court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, the first two issues have been decided in favour of the petitioner. 11. Since the first two issues having been decided in favour of the petitioner with the impugned order, being held to be not an order of transfer but an order of appointment issued in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution, is liable to be quashed and set aside, there is no need of deciding the third issue. However, during the course of hearing, both the counsels appearing for the parties have advanced their arguments as regards the third issue and therefore, this court proposes to decide it also. The contention of Shri I. Lalitkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 is a backdated order, is based upon certain circumstances namely a copy of the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 is not served upon him at all; that he came to know about it from reliable sources only in the month of December 2014 and that the fact that the respondent No. 4 was released only on 15-12-2014 shows that the order dated 10-10-2014 never existed prior to December, 2014. This contention is denied by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any material to substantiate it. When it is alleged that a document is a backdated one, the allegation implies that the document is not prepared on the date mentioned in it but is prepared on any date subsequent thereto and it further implies that it is prepared with malafide intention which is impermissible in law. Whether a document is backdated one or not cannot be ascertained from the perusal of the document itself and it is to be ascertained from the perusal of the other relevant documents which existed prior to or after the date of the document in question. Moreover, in order to read the malafide intention of the persons who prepared the document, one has to examine the circumstances, as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of those persons. Moreover, in order to read the malafide intention of the persons who prepared the document, one has to examine the circumstances, as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of those persons. Since the document namely the impugned order is prepared within four walls of the State Government, it is impossible for the petitioner to produce any material except making prima facie allegations based on circumstances. So as to enable this court to examine the other relevant documents, this court directed the Government Advocate to produce the relevant file and in compliance thereof, the Government Advocate produced before this court a file bearing No. 7(4)/3/2009-S(HE)pt(I) pertaining to Transfer & Posting for College Teachers. It may be mentioned here that the main file being No. 7(4)/3/2009-S(HE) and the other part file being No. 7(4)/3/2009-S(HE)pt(II) are not produced for perusal by this court for the reasons best known to the State Government. After the perusal of documents available on record and the said file, the following circumstances have emerged: "(a) If the transfer order dated 10-10-2014 has really been issued on the said date with immediate effect, why is not a copy thereof served upon the petitioner? There is no material on record to show that a copy of the said order dated 10-10-2014 has been served not only upon the petitioner but also upon the respondent No. 4 and the Principals of the Thoubal College and Hill College, Tadubi, prior to December, 2014 who are required to implement the said order; (b) The allegation that the order dated 10-10-2014 is backdated, has substance from the fact that in the letter dated 10-12-2014 addressed to the Director, University & Higher Education by the petitioner, an endorsement has been given by the Director as "I have also not seen the order" while marking it to the Joint Director on 10-12-2014, a copy of which is available at page 353 of the file. If that be so, the existence of the impugned order prior to December 2014 is highly doubtful; (c) The order dated 10-10-2014 is issued on the basis of an application dated nil submitted, not through proper channel, to the Hon'ble Education Minister by the respondent No. 4 without even a copy thereof being endorsed either to the Commissioner or the Director. The said application was received by the Hon'ble Minister on 10-10-2014 itself; file was processed at once and the order of appointment of the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal was issued on the same day. The high and unusual speed at which the order is issued shows that the action of the State Government is malafide and is issued only to favour the respondent No. 4. It may be noted that the prayer in the said application is that the respondent No. 4 be appointed as i/c Principal of the Thoubal College where he is serving as Associate Professor as and when the post is vacant; (d) The order dated 10-10-2014 is not a transfer order simpliciter but it is an order appointing the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Hill College in the guise of a transfer order which is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India for the reason that at the time of consideration for appointment as i/c Principal, Hill College, no other eligible Associate Professors working in 28 different Government Colleges were considered and only the respondent No. 4 was considered and appointed vide impugned order dated 10-10-2014. It may be noted that the cadre of Associate Professor and that of the Principal, Government Colleges are different and the Principal is the promotional post from the cadre of Associate Professor. The transfer is permissible only in the same cadre as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; (e) The note No. 24 dated 10-10-2014 of the Deputy Secretary (Hr. & Tech. Edn.) in the file shows clearly that the order dated 10-10-2014 is a backdated one and this note is the note which initiated the process for appointment of the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Hill College, Tadubi. Para 4 of the note No. 24 is as under: "4. In consultation with JD(U) over the phone there is one vacant post of Asstt./Asso. in Economics is presently available at D.M. College of Commerce as seen at page 347/cf subject to adjustment of the post as and when the ongoing recruitment for 285 Asst. Prof. through MPSC. However, it is brought to the kind notice of A/D Hr. Edn. about the Govt. Order of IQAC process in the Govt. in Economics is presently available at D.M. College of Commerce as seen at page 347/cf subject to adjustment of the post as and when the ongoing recruitment for 285 Asst. Prof. through MPSC. However, it is brought to the kind notice of A/D Hr. Edn. about the Govt. Order of IQAC process in the Govt. Colleges (P-342-346) cf." This page 347 refers to a document which bears the date of 15-11-2014 and from the perusal of the said document which consists of list of subject, Government Colleges and Category-wise No. of vacancies of posts furnished by the Government vide letter dated 29-10-2014, it appears that it might have been prepared after 29-10-2014 and probably on 15-11-2014 because it has a reference to MPSC Advertisement No. 15 of 2014 dated 15-11-2014 for direct recruitment to Asstt. Professor of Govt. Colleges. Then the question arises is as to whether the Deputy Secretary (Hr. & Tech. Edn), while writing the said note No. 24 on 10-10-2014, could have referred to the said document at page 347 or not. It is hard to believe that the Deputy Secretary (Hr. & Tech. Edn.) could have foreseen the document at page 347 before it came into existence and therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is that the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 was prepared only after seeing the document dated 15-11-2014 at page 347 and not earlier than that. (f) The only possible reason as to why the order dated 10-10-2014 came to be issued backdated, is that the policy decision, by way of an order dated 29-10-2014 in respect of transfer, posting etc. in Higher & Technical Education, had been issued whereby permanent posting was introduced in respect of Assistant Professors appointed after 29-10-2014 and in respect of those Assistant/Associate Professors who were appointed prior to 29-10-2014, permanent posting would be done only after they exercised their options for posting to two or more Colleges in order of preference; (g) The stand of the State Government is that the transfer and posting order dated 10-10-2014 is issued in public interest. It may be noted that this court's view is that it is not a transfer order but an order appointing the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Hill College issued in violation of the Article 16 of the Constitution. It may be noted that this court's view is that it is not a transfer order but an order appointing the respondent No. 4 as i/c Principal, Hill College issued in violation of the Article 16 of the Constitution. Assuming that it is a transfer order, the question arise is as to whose public interest would it serve by transferring the petitioner from being the i/c Principal, Hill College against the wishes/desires of the students and the people of that area and that too, against the policy decision of the State Government vide order dated 29-10-2014; (h) The file produced before this court pertains to transfer and posting for College teachers. The notes relating to the petitioner's transfer are available in two sides of one sheet only namely page 38 on the one side and 39 on the other- page 38 consists of notes dated 10-10-2014 only commencing from the note of the Deputy Secretary (Hr. & Tech. Edn.) proposing the transfer and posting of the respondent No. 4 till the approval being granted by the Hon'ble Minister and the issuance of the order dated 10-10-2014 whereas page 39 consists of notes dated 06-01-2015 of the Deputy Secretary (Hr. & Tech. Edn.) placing before the Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Edn.) for perusal of the representations of the petitioner and the Students' Union and for decision. The note of the Commissioner (Hr. & Tech. Edn.) proposing that the Director, University & Hr. Education be advised to look into the matter so as to resolve it urgently, was approved by the Hon'ble Minister on 23-01-2015. What is surprising is that there is no note in the file, between 10-10-2014 and 06-01-2015, pertaining to any other teacher and there is no any note whatsoever after 23-01-2015 till when the file was produced before this court i.e., 14-05-2015 though the file is meant for all teachers. The order dated 31-01-2015, impugned in the connected writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 138 of 2015, which appears to have been issued only to render the interim order dated 30-01-2015 otiose, has been issued in the part-II file which is not produced before this court. The order dated 31-01-2015, impugned in the connected writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 138 of 2015, which appears to have been issued only to render the interim order dated 30-01-2015 otiose, has been issued in the part-II file which is not produced before this court. The manner in which the notes pertaining to the petitioner are written in one sheet only within a period of six months, creates a doubt on the action being bonafide; (i) The State Government's action is malafide for the reason that the order dated 10-10-2014 was issued only to favour the respondent No. 4. From the materials on record and the file, it appears that the State Government has endeavoured to help the respondent No. 4 at different stages. Immediately, on the next day i.e., 31-01-2015 after the interim order dated 30-01-2015 being passed by this court, the State Government accepted the request of self charge taking which appears to be impermissible in law when both the relieving and relieved officers are available. The Deputy Secretary (Hr. & Tech. Edn.), along with his Addl. Affidavit dated 19-02-2015, has filed a copy of the letter dated 20-01-2015 of the respondent No. 4 (Annexure - C/2) as true copy of its original but is different from the one available in the file at page 358 and the letter at page 358 of the file has no date and was received on 19-01-2015 whereas the one as Annexure - C/2 bears the date of 20-01-2015. Similarly, a copy of the TR - 1 form filed along with the said Addl. Affidavit as Annexure - C/2 is different from the TR-1 form filed by the respondent No. 4 along with his counter affidavit at page 41 and it is not clear as to which one is the true copy of the original and as to who is speaking the truth." 12. The above circumstances particularly the one at (e) would make it very clear that the order dated 10-10-2014 is a backdated order issued in malafide exercise of power and it is not a transfer order which cannot be interfered with by the court. Considering the overall circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Considering the overall circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. In view of the above observations, the present writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 77 of 2015 and W.P. (C) No. 138 of 2015 are allowed and the impugned orders dated 10-10-2014 and 31-01-2015 are quashed and set aside with no order as to costs. However, it is open to the State Government to issue appropriate transfer orders in respect of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 in accordance with the policy decision vide order dated 29-10-2014 issued by the State Government. Since this court having held that the impugned order dated 10-10-2014 is a backdated order, the Chief Secretary, Manipur is directed to refer, within three weeks from today, the matter to the State Vigilance Commission to conduct an enquiry within a specified period and to find out who are responsible for it so that appropriate and exemplary action can be taken against them in accordance with law. A certified copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary, Manipur for his doing the needful.