JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the office order under No.F.2-40/Estt/TFDPC-2-12/11894-902 dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from his present place of posting at TFDPC Industrial Estate, Anandanagar to Baishnabpur RPC under South-II Division. On the same date the petitioner has been released in pursuance to the said order of transfer dated 07.03.2017 by the office order under No. F.2-1/Estt/TFDPC IE-16/6776-82 dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The petitioner has also challenged the said office order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). 2. The petitioner initially was engaged as the Machine Operator under the respondents on contractual engagement. On expiry of the five years when ten other Machine Operators were regularized by granting regular pay scale, the petitioner’s case was segregated and not considered. Having been persuaded by such circumstances, the petitioner challenged the decision by filing the writ petition being WP(C)820/2016 in this High Court. The writ petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 06.12.2016. Pursuant to the said judgment, the respondents granted the petitioner regular pay scale by the order dated 27.02.2017. But on 07.03.2017, within a week, the petitioner has been transferred from TFDPC Industrial Estate, Anandanagar to Baishnabpur RPC under South-II Division in the interest of the Corporation and he was, as stated, immediately released on the same date. 3. However, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 14.03.2017 to the respondent No.2, through proper channel, praying cancellation of the said order of transfer and the order of release on the ground that there is no post of Machine Operator in the establishment of Baishnabpur RPC or any RPC in the state of Tripura. The petitioner has been ousted from his cadre and transferred to a non-existing post in violation of FR15. Such action is punitive in nature and as such the petitioner has urged for interference by this Court. 4. The petitioner is working in a low category post and if he is transferred to Baishnabpur RPC his family would be thrown in a pitiable situation inasmuch as the dislocation that would be created if the transfer order is given effect to, would saddle the petitioner with additional expenses to maintain two establishments-which is wholly unwarranted. The petitioner deserves to be treated with certain amount of compassion. 5. The petitioner deserves to be treated with certain amount of compassion. 5. In reply, the respondents did not dispute the fact as stated by the petitioner but the respondents have stated that all the allegations are absolutely without any foundation. By the reply they have laid the perspective facts before this Court. In the 150th meeting of the Board of Directors of TFDPC Ltd. held on 17.12.2016 the Board had approved the duty posts of the TFDPC Ltd. It has been decided by the said Board that the Machine Operators are to be posted at Factory and Rubber Processing Centers of the TFDPC Ltd. Accordingly, the Notification No.F.2-129/Estt/TFDPC-83/9704-09 dated 05.01.2017 (Anenxure-2 to the reply) has been issued. 6. From the notification issued by the TFDPC Ltd. it appears that the Board has decided that the Machine Operators may be posted in Factory and RPC of the TFDPC Ltd. Thus, the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that the Machine Operators cannot be transferred to the RPC and they would be posted in the Factory only. 7. It has been further asserted that against such order no judicial review is maintainable. Being the employer, the TFDPC Ltd. is best situated to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees and that power has been exercised bona fide and reasonably and it has been so done in public interest. The petitioner was never transferred earlier and he was posted only in the Factory. The apprehension of the petitioner can be debased from the fact that the judgment and order of this Court has been complied with in true spirit and the petitioner has been given all the benefits in terms of the said order. 8. In para 9 the respondents have categorically stated as under: “I submit that in the Baishanbpur RPC there is need for posting of Machine Operator. Considering the need felt by the authority vide notification No.F.2-129/ESTT/TFDPC/86/9704-09 dated 5.1.2017, the duty post for Machine Operator, TFDPC Ltd is placed at Factory and RPC of TFDPC Ltd. This notification was the outcome of the resolution of 150th meeting of the Board of Directors of TFDPC Ltd. So, the decision for change of duty post of Machine Operator was taken considering the administrative exigencies.” 9. However, the respondents have asserted further that the contention that the petitioner has been transferred out of the cadre and to a non-existing post in violation of FR15 cannot be sustained as this transfer has been caused in terms of the changed policy. There is no violation of any law, even there is no mala fide exercise of power as it would be apparent that the petitioner did not allege mala fide against any officer of the TFDPC Ltd. The mala fide as projected even if treated as projected to be mala fide omnibus, but there is no material. The transfer has been caused for meeting the bona fide requirement and in the administrative exigencies. The policy can be changed in the interest of the Corporation and the TFDPC Ltd. by changing its policy has decided to use the services of the Machine Operators in the RPCs owned by the TFDPC Ltd. The change in the policy has been duly notified and one individual Machine Operator cannot be allowed to hold that he cannot be transferred from his present place of posting. 10. Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that altogether there are sixteen Machine Operators under the TFDPC Ltd. Eleven Machine Operators were appointed in the year 2009 and 5 were appointed on 19.10.2010. Out of the five Machine Operators, appointed in 2010 two are posted at Takmacherra Factory and the rest three have been posted along with eleven Machine Operators in the Factory at Anandanagar. In support of that, a final seniority list has been annexed with the rejoinder. 11. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further submitted that since the respondents could not stall the regular pay scale of the petitioner and they were compelled to give regular pay scale by the order of this Court, they are now avenging the petitioner by transferring him on extraneous reasons and without any bona fide purpose and the sole purpose of such transfer is to punish the petitioner by way of posting him out of his home station. 12. 12. There are 100 RPCs in the State and the respondents have not explained any reason for posting the petitioner to a particular RPC keeping all other RPCs without any Machine Operator and also failed to explain the reason as to why the petitioner was the only Machine Operator picked up for transferring to the RPC leaving all the others in the Factory. 13. Mr. TD Majumdar, learned GA appearing for the respondents has submitted that an employee cannot dictate his place of posting. It is the competent authority having the power to post the employees would decide where the employee would be deployed in the interest of the management. Mr. Majumdar, learned GA has submitted that this Court may not embark on the judicial review of the transfer order. 14. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has also placed the agenda note of the review meeting of the TFDPC Ltd. on 02.02.2010 to show before this Court that the staffing pattern as formulated by the competent authority. No projection has been made in the staffing pattern that in the RPCs, there is any requirement of Machine Operators. Finally, Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has relied on a decision in Satya Ranjan Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Tripura and ors.[judgment and order dated 19.07.1996 delivered in Civil Rule No.21/1973] where the Gauhati High Court had occasion to observe as under: “A person could be validly transferred from a post, as explained by the Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974, Vol.10(1) S.L.R.,497, to any corresponding post even created under the inherent executive powers of the State Government. But no valid transfer could be effected of a person from one post to another post which has not even sanctioned. No such post having been sanctioned the impugned order is plainly illegal and is accordingly quashed.” According to Mr. Bhowmik, the circumstances in this case is substantially identical with the case of Satya Ranjan Bhattacharjee (supra). 15. Finally, Mr. Bhowmik has relied on another decision of the Gauhati High Court in Arunendu Deb Vs. State of Tripura and Ors,. reported in (1999) 3 GLR 284 [judgment and order dated 14.02.1997 delivered in WA 29/1993] where the Gauhati High Court has observed as follows: “6. 15. Finally, Mr. Bhowmik has relied on another decision of the Gauhati High Court in Arunendu Deb Vs. State of Tripura and Ors,. reported in (1999) 3 GLR 284 [judgment and order dated 14.02.1997 delivered in WA 29/1993] where the Gauhati High Court has observed as follows: “6. It is well settled that the government or its functionaries have power to transfer its employees employed in a transferable post as transfer is an incidence of service to meet the exigencies of the administration. No right is conferred on a government servant for being posted at a specified place. The authorities in-charge of an employee are the sole judges about the necessity or desirability of such transfer as they have to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of their employees. The provision of transfer is intended to check creation of vested interest, nepotism and corruption. This power of transfer, however, should be exercised only bona fide and reasonably and in public interest. If any transfer of any employee is made on extraneous consideration or for achieving any alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in exigencies of service. In case a transfer order is mala fide or oblique motive, such as by way of punishment or for collateral reasons the Writ Court can interfere with the orders of transfer. 7. In this regard, a reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Rajendra Roy, Appellant V. Union of India and another, Respondents reported in (1993) 1 SCC 148 in which the Apex Court held thus: “The order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and di9slocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. In a transferrable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere without the order of transfer.” 8. In a transferrable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere without the order of transfer.” 8. F.R. 15 and SR 2(18) contemplate that a transfer of a Govt. servant can be made from one post to another, in other words an incumbent in a post can be transferred to an existing equivalent post securing all service benefit. As it is admitted fact by both the parties now that there is no post of Chi9ef Inspector at Chailengta, the Sub-Divisional Headquarter of Langtharai Sub-division, in our considered view, the order of transfer transferring the appellate to a non-existing post at the said Sub-divisional head quarter is clearly violation of the said Rules of F.R. and S.R.” 16. Mr. TD Majumdar, learned GA appearing for the respondents has submitted that the mere allegation of mala fide is not sufficient. It has to be brought on record by the person alleging mala fide. Having referred to EP Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 , Mr. Dutta Majumdar has contended that the allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than proved and the seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a higher order. 17. Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, two pertinent questions, as emerging for consideration by this court, are as under: (a) Whether the posts of Machine Operators are transferrable in nature? (b) On the basis of the policy decision as taken by the Board of Directors of TFDPC Ltd. in their 150th meeting, whether the transfer of the petitioner can be held valid? 18. Even the petitioner did not assert that his post is not transferrable. His contention is confined to that in his place of transfer there is no post of Machine Operator. The posts of Machine Operators have been created only for the factories and not for the Rubber Processing Centers [RPCs] and hence his transfer in the light of the above decisions and FR 15 is wholly unsustainable. However, there is no challenge against the policy decision as such and in view of that omnibus mala fide cannot be held sustainable. The posts of Machine Operators have been created only for the factories and not for the Rubber Processing Centers [RPCs] and hence his transfer in the light of the above decisions and FR 15 is wholly unsustainable. However, there is no challenge against the policy decision as such and in view of that omnibus mala fide cannot be held sustainable. 19. True it is that the transfer of a Group-C and Group-D employee sometimes creates a serious dislocation and causes hardship to the incumbent employee or his family but the hardship cannot be a matter of judicial review. It can be assessed only by the competent authority and that authority has the power to made necessary modification or amendment. But the sequence of events and the change of policy vis-a-vis the transfer of the petitioner by a single transfer order though ex facie creates doubt in the mind of the Court that whether the exercise was bona fide or it was an avenging act towards the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to place any material enable this Court to infer that the said act is the outcome of mala fide act or is based on extraneous materials. The petitioner’s allegations are not supported by the foundational facts and as such this Court is unable to draw a conclusion that the impugned transfer order is a product of mala fide action or founded on extraneous consideration having no nexus with public interest. 20. Having observed thus, this writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, as passed earlier, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.