JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for respondent Nos.1 5 and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. counsel appearing for respondent No.11. 2. This writ appeal is preferred under Chapter VA(2) of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.321(AP)/2018. 3. The writ appellant, who is working as an Executive Engineer (Electrical), has challenged the order of transfer dated 31.05.2018 transferring him from Namsai Electrical Division to the Office of the Superintending Engineer(E), Dirang and transferring respondent No.11 from the office of the Chief Engineer (P), WEZ, Itanagar to the post held by the writ appellant. By the said transfer order dated 31.05.2018, 12 Executive Engineers (Electrical) were transferred and all of them were arrayed as party respondents in the writ petition. Apart from the said order dated 31.05.2018, the writ appellant has also put to challenge the order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Power), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner on 05.06.2018 against his order of transfer. 4. By the said representation dated 05.06.2018, the appellant had prayed for extension of his tenure by one more year. It is relevant to note that when the said representation was pending consideration and disposal, the appellant had instituted a writ petition, which was numbered and registered as WP(C) No.278(AP)/2018. The said writ petition came to be disposed by the order dated 12.06.2018. It will be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the order, which is as follows:- "Considering the entire matter and that the representation of the petitioner dated 05.06.2018 is still pending before the Commissioner (Power) Government of Arunachal Pradesh, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself, without entering into the merit of the case, directing the Commissioner (Power), the respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 05.06.2018 on or before 22.06.2018 by reasoned order communicating its outcome to him. For the said purpose, the petitioner shall submit an application along copy of this writ petition and the certified copy of this order before the Commissioner (Power) Government of Arunachal Pradesh on or before 14.06.2018 during the office hours. For the said purpose, the petitioner shall submit an application along copy of this writ petition and the certified copy of this order before the Commissioner (Power) Government of Arunachal Pradesh on or before 14.06.2018 during the office hours. In the event of the filing of such application by the petitioner within the time specified, the Commissioner (Power), Government of Arunachal Pradesh shall pass the necessary order as observed above and till such disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the Commissioner (Power), Government of Arunachal Pradeh, status quo as on today with regard to the posing of the petitioner and the respondent No.11 at Namsai, shall be maintained by the parties to this writ petition." 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ appellant had preferred a writ appeal, which was registered as WA No.221/2018. By the order dated 22.06.2018, notice was issued in the said writ appeal and while issuing such notice, the writ appellate court had continued the order of status quo passed by the learned Single Judge. The primary grievance raised in the said writ appeal was that as the appellant had alleged malafide, the direction to dispose of the representation dated 05.06.2018 was an exercise in futility. 6. While WA No.221/2018 was pending disposal, challenging the order dated 22.06.2018, whereby, the representation dated 05.06.2018 was rejected, the appellant had instituted the writ petition, numbered as WP(C) No.321(AP)/2018, in which the order of transfer dated 31.05.2018 also came to be challenged. Taking note of the above developments, by an order dated 20.08.2018, the WA No.221/2018 was disposed of with the following observations:- "In the above factual scenario, we are of the considered opinion that because of the turn of events, it will not be necessary for this Court to go into the question as to whether the learned Single Judge ought to have embarked upon a journey to consider the merits of the case instead of directing disposal of the representation dated 05.06.2018, as a fresh writ petition came to be filed by the writ appellant. We say no more on the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as we do not want to cause prejudice to any of the parties as all issues are open before the learned Single Judge for adjudication. Mr. We say no more on the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as we do not want to cause prejudice to any of the parties as all issues are open before the learned Single Judge for adjudication. Mr. Roychoudhury has submitted that the next hearing of the case before the learned Single Judge is fixed on 28.08.2018. The parties present today will appear before the learned Single Judge on 28.08.2018. Mr. Roychoudhury submits that as the interim order in WP(C) No.321(AP)/2018 was passed solely on the ground of the interim order that was passed in this appeal on 22.06.2018, he will make a fresh prayer for interim order on 28.08.2018, as the writ appeal is now disposed of. While observing that the appellant will be at liberty to make such prayer, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the appellant, the State Government as well as the respondent No.11, will pass such order as may be considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. With the above directions and observations, the writ appeal is disposed of." 7. Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury has submitted that in terms of the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the writ appellate court in WA No.221/2018, the parties had appeared before the learned Single Judge on 28.08.2018 and on that day, an interim order was passed extending the order of status quo. The writ petition was heard on 30.08.2018 and thereafter, the impugned judgment and order came to be passed. 8. Mr. Roychoudhury has submitted that the learned Single Judge did not address the issue of malafide raised by the petitioner. While rejecting the representation, the respondent No.1 did not consider the grounds cited by the appellant for requesting an extension of one year. It is submitted by him that the contents of the note sheets which were also extracted by the learned Single Judge, would demonstrate unequivocally that the transfer order dated 31.05.2018 came to be passed at the behest of Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of two constituencies, namely, Namsai and Chowkham. He has submitted that the aforesaid two MLAs, on extraneous and collateral consideration, had pitched for posting of the respondent No.11 in his place at Namsai and on the basis thereof, the respondent No.1 had passed the impugned order of transfer. He has submitted that the aforesaid two MLAs, on extraneous and collateral consideration, had pitched for posting of the respondent No.11 in his place at Namsai and on the basis thereof, the respondent No.1 had passed the impugned order of transfer. It is contended that any interference by any MLA or a person in active politics in matters of transfer would vitiate the order of transfer and in this connection he relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.P. Jal Nigam & others, (2003) 11 SCC 740. He has sought to distinguish the judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmed Vs. State of U.P. & others, (2007) 8 SCC 150 , by contending that in the aforesaid case a complaint was lodged against the officer, who was transferred, which is not so in the instant case in as much as the appellant had diligently and with sincerity discharged his duties during his tenure at Namsai. It is further submitted by him that even though normal tenure of posting as of today is 2 years, at the time of effecting transfer, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities to take into account the guidelines set forth in the Circular dated 02.06.1998. Drawing attention of the Court to Clauses 1(g) of the Circular, he submits that in view of the intervention of different pressure groups, the respondent No.11 is liable to be proceeded with departmental proceeding. However, instead of drawing up a departmental proceeding against him, he was rewarded with the posting as desired by such pressure groups. By making a reference to Clause 3(b) of the Circular, it is submitted by him that the transferred officers are supposed to take charge in their respective places of transfer by May i.e. before the onset of the monsoon and after the school examination of their children and the impugned order of transfer having not addressed this aspect of the matter, the same is also liable to be interfered with on this count also. It is further submitted by him that his elder son being a student of Class-X, his studies will suffer if at this juncture the appellant is transferred. 9. Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. It is further submitted by him that his elder son being a student of Class-X, his studies will suffer if at this juncture the appellant is transferred. 9. Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. counsel appearing for respondent No.11 has submitted that the sheet-anchor of the case of the appellant is based on the two note sheets so far as it relates to the allegations of malafide. A reading of the same, according to Mr. Tiwari, does not even remotely suggest that the impugned order of transfer was passed out of malice or as a result of malafide exercise of power. He has submitted that the Commissioner (Power) i.e. the respondent No.1, being the competent authority to pass order of transfer, had considered the materials on record in its proper perspective and had passed a routine order of transfer dated 31.05.2018 transferring 12 officers of the department. He contends that no plea of malafide having been raised against the Commissioner (Power) and he being not made a party respondent by name, the plea of malafide falls flat on the ground. Relying on Mohd. Masood Ahmed, he submits that a request made in favour of one particular officer by an MLA would not, ipso facto, vitiate the order of transfer. He has submitted that present is not a case where the appellant or the respondent No.11 had been singled out for transfer and that it is also not in dispute that both the appellant and the respondent No.11 had completed their normal tenure of posting in their respective places. He has further submitted that merely because some schemes were supervised by the appellant, cannot be a ground for extension of his tenure, as highlighted in his representation dated 05.06.2018, in as much as, same can be supervised by the new incumbent in the office. 10. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 with particular emphasis on paragraph 8. He has also placed reliance of the above judgment to contend that an administrative guideline for transfer does not confer any legally enforceable right. 11. Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that plea of malafide is raised without any factual foundation. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 with particular emphasis on paragraph 8. He has also placed reliance of the above judgment to contend that an administrative guideline for transfer does not confer any legally enforceable right. 11. Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that plea of malafide is raised without any factual foundation. Both the appellant and the respondent No.11 were due for transfer and the request made by the two MLAs, whose constituencies covered Namsai Electrical Division, had to be seen in that perspective. It is also not that merely because they had made a request, the Minister in the Department of Power had ordered the transfer of either of the appellant or the respondent No.11. The Minister of Power had only directed to examine and process the case and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any overt or covert pressure on the competent authority to pass the order in a particular manner. 12. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 13. In Gobardhan Lal at paragraph 8, the Supreme Court had stated as follows:- "8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer." 14. A perusal of the above observations of the Supreme Court would go to show that the allegations of malafide when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials. Plea of malafide should not be entertained on the mere asking of it and on considerations which have roots on conjectures and surmises. 15. Plea of malafide should not be entertained on the mere asking of it and on considerations which have roots on conjectures and surmises. 15. The burden of establishing malafide is very high on the person who alleges it and it being a very serious allegation, requires proof of higher order of credibility which is supported by foundational facts. It is very easy to allege malafide than to prove. At the same time, it may not always be possible to establish malice with precise particulars and having regard to the allegations made in a particular case, it may be permissible to draw reasonable inference of malafide from the pleadings. But there has to be firm foundational facts. Insinuations, conjectures and surmises are not substitute of foundational facts. 16. In the representation dated 05.06.2018 against the order of transfer, which is the starting point of the grievance expressed by the appellant, it is stated as follows:- "The above transfer order has not been issued in the public interest rather due to political will as per "Note Sheets" given by the Honorable MLAs of Namsai and Chowkham constituencies." The foundation of the writ petition on the ground of malafide lies on the above said allegation. The note sheets, to which reference is made in the said representation, was extracted by the learned Single Judge. For better appreciation, we also consider it expedient to extract the same from Annexure-4 and 5 of the writ petition, as annexed by the writ appellant, in our order. The same read as follows:- "ARUNACHAL PRADESH Sub: Transfer and posting of Er. Ashok Kumar Paul, Executive Engineer (E), Power to Namsai Electrical Division. Shri Ashok Kumar Paul, Executive Engineer (E), presently posted in the Planning Division of office of the Chief Engineer, Western Electrical Zone, Department of Power, Itanagar may kindly be transferred and posted as Executive Engineer, Namsai Electrical Division. Hon'ble Minister (Power, etc.) is requested to transfer him to Namsai Electrical Division in the interest of public service. Sd/- (Chow Zingnu Namchoom) MLA Namsai and Parl. Secy. Planning Hon'ble Minister (Power, etc.) UO No.HPS(PLG)-01/2018/ Dtd. 25th April, 2018 Comm Power Please examine and process. Hon'ble Minister (Power, etc.) is requested to transfer him to Namsai Electrical Division in the interest of public service. Sd/- (Chow Zingnu Namchoom) MLA Namsai and Parl. Secy. Planning Hon'ble Minister (Power, etc.) UO No.HPS(PLG)-01/2018/ Dtd. 25th April, 2018 Comm Power Please examine and process. Sd/- 03/05/2018 ARUNACHAL PRADESH Sri A.K. Paul Executive Engineer (Electrical) presently posted in the office of the Chief Engineer (Power), Western Electrical Zone, Department of Power, Itanagar, may kindly be transferred and posted as Executive Engineer (Electrical), Namsai Electrical Division, Namsai, in place of Sri N.K. Jha EE (Electrical). The case of posting of Sri A.K. Paul as EE(E) Namsai has already been recommended by Chow Zingnu Namchoom, Hon'ble MLA, Namsai and Parliamentary Secretary (Planning) vide his UO No. HPS(PLG)-01/2018, Dtd. 25.04.2018 Chowna Mein, Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister, Arunachal Pradesh also declares that Shri Paul be posted at Namsai Electrical Division for the utilization of his services in Namsai and Lohit Districts. Sd/- Chow Tewa Mein MLA Chowkham and Parl. Secy. Environment and Forest. Hon'ble Minister (Power, etc.) UO No.HPS(Enviro. & Forest)/02/AP/2018/212 Dtd. 16.05.2018 Please examine and process Sd/- 16/5/2018" 17. From the above, it is seen that the Departmental Minister did not direct transfer as requested by the MLAs and had only ordered for examination and processing of the same. There can be no gainsaying the fact that examination and processing necessarily has to be in accordance with law. There is no material on record to show that the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner (Power) was otherwise influenced in any manner to pass the order of transfer of appellant and respondent No.11. The statement made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, on which reliance was placed by Mr. Roychoudhury, that the impugned order of transfer was made for collateral purposes with the oblique motive to please the respondent No.7, to say the least, is a bald allegation and without any material particulars. If plea of malafide is to be attributed, the same has to be attributed against the respondent No.1 also because it was he who had passed the impugned order. However, no plea of malafide has been raised against him and he was also not impleaded in his persona capacity. The materials on record do not indicate that the order of transfer was issued only because of the request made by the MLAs. 18. However, no plea of malafide has been raised against him and he was also not impleaded in his persona capacity. The materials on record do not indicate that the order of transfer was issued only because of the request made by the MLAs. 18. As noted earlier, by the order of transfer 12 officers in the rank of Executive Engineer (Electrical) including the appellant and the respondent No.11 were transferred. The appellant was due for transfer, he having completed more than the normal tenure at Namsai. Therefore, the allegation of malafide in respect of transfer of the appellant is misplaced. Request made for posting of the respondent No.11 in his place by the two MLAs does not taint the order of transfer of the appellant with the vice of malice in law. Any other officer also could have been posted in his place. Merely because the respondent No.11 came to be posted consequent upon transfer of the appellant after his normal tenure was over it cannot be countenanced that the order of transfer was a result of malafide exercise of power and not in public interest. 19. In Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the power of transfer is required to be effected on the basis of set norms and guidelines and the power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, malafide at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. In the instant case, the appellant has not raised any allegation against the MLAs that they are inimical to his interest or they have got any prejudice against him. In Mohd. Masood Ahmed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that even if an officer is transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. In the instant case, as noted earlier, there is nothing on record to suggest that only because of their request, the transfer order was issued. 20. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that plea of malafide set up by the appellant does not commend for acceptance. 21. So far as the submission of Mr. In the instant case, as noted earlier, there is nothing on record to suggest that only because of their request, the transfer order was issued. 20. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the opinion that plea of malafide set up by the appellant does not commend for acceptance. 21. So far as the submission of Mr. Roychoudhury that the transfer order having been passed w.e.f. 05.06.2018, the same militates against Clause 3(b) of the Circular dated 02.06.1998 as the officers cannot take charge before 31.05.2018 in terms of the said Clause 3(b) and therefore, the transfer order is liable to be set aside, it is to be noted that as held in Gobardhan Lal, order of transfer cannot be interfered with even if such an order is passed in transgression of administrative guidelines, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights. An order of transfer can only be interfered with if it is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provision or having been passed by an authority. 22. Clause 3(g) of the Circular dated 02.06.1998 provides that those officers who seek intervention of different pressure groups for transfer and posting would be liable for disciplinary action as per Conduct Rules. There is no allegation that the respondent No.11 was currying favour from the MLAs. It was the MLAs of two constituencies falling under Namsai Electrical Division who had requested posting of the respondent No.11 as Executive Engineer (Electrical) of Namsai Electrical Division. That being the position, the argument of Mr. Roychoudhury that the respondent No.11 was seeking intervention of different pressure groups for transfer and, therefore, liable to be proceeded with in a disciplinary proceeding, is without any substance. 23. With regard to the plea taken in the representation by the appellant in respect of his elder son, it was noted by the respondent No.1 while passing the order dated 22.06.2018 that the academic session had just started and that there are good numbers of Government as well as private schools at Dirang. Even under the Circular dated 02.06.1998, the transferee officers are to take charge by the end of May. The transfer order in the instant case was issued on 31.05.2018 to be effected from 05.06.2018 and, therefore, it is not a case where the transfer order is issued very belatedly. 24. Even under the Circular dated 02.06.1998, the transferee officers are to take charge by the end of May. The transfer order in the instant case was issued on 31.05.2018 to be effected from 05.06.2018 and, therefore, it is not a case where the transfer order is issued very belatedly. 24. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.