ORDER : Nandita Chatterjee, Member (A) 1. The applicant has apprehension Tribunal second stage litigation in a sequel to O.A. No. 351/00429/2018. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal on 28.3.2018 and the respondent authorities had issued a speaking order in compliance thereof. The instant Original Application has been filed primary assailing the speaking order dated 19.7.2018 and the transfer order dated 13.3.2018. 2. Heard both learned Counsel, examined pleadings and documents on record. Learned Counsel for the respondents would refer to orders of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 351/00695/2018 [Ved Prakash Mishra v. A & N Admn.] in their support. 3. The applicant's case, as submitted through her learned Counsel, is that the applicant had joined as GTT/PGT under the Directorate of Education in 1985 and her last posting was at SSS, Manglutan, South Andaman, Port Blair from 1.8.2017. That, a transfer order had been issued on 13.3.2018, barely seven months after the applicant had been posted as Vice Principal, SSS, Manglutan, South Andaman, Port Blair to SS Mus, Car Nicobar (Zone II) which is a remote posting and that the applicant has only 4 years of service left prior to superannuation. That, although the respondents had issued a reasoned order, it was issued by an incompetent authority and the said order was nor formally served upon the applicant. Challenging the said reasoned order, however, the applicant has filed the instant Original Application. The applicant has advanced the following grounds, inter alia, in support of her claim:- (a) That the reasoned order was issued by an incompetent authority as, despite the Tribunal's directions that the respondent No. 2 namely the Chief Secretary was to consider the case of the applicant, the order was issued by another authority. (b) The reasoned order is a product of malice in law and malice in fact. (c) The order so impugned is a product of extraneous considerations. (d) The applicant has not completed even half the existing tenure at Port Blair but was transferred within seven months therefrom. (e) That the junior most of 'B' officers are holding higher posts in the Education Department of the A & N Administration. (c) The order so impugned is a product of extraneous considerations. (d) The applicant has not completed even half the existing tenure at Port Blair but was transferred within seven months therefrom. (e) That the junior most of 'B' officers are holding higher posts in the Education Department of the A & N Administration. Learned Counsel would also submit that the applicant's child is studying in Class XI, her spouse is posted in a non-transferrable post at Port Blair and also that the applicant could not have been posted earlier in Car Nicobar (Zone II) as there was no Bengali Medium School therein and hence cannot be penalized with a posting to the said remote zone at the fag end of her service career. 4. Per contra, the respondents have argued that the speaking order has indeed been issued in terms of the orders of the Tribunal on 28.3.2018 and is based on guidelines of the respondent authorities. The respondents would further contend that the applicant was relieved on 30.7.2018, and as the speaking order has been annexed in the instant Original Application and challenged upfront, receipt and knowledge of the same cannot be denied at this stage. The respondents would further agitate that the applicant's tenure profit vis-à-vis the mandated profits, under the transfer policy of the respondents, requires that the applicant be transferred to the Zone II where she had never served and that her transfer was based absolutely on Station seniority. Regarding the spouse ground, the respondents would refer to sub-para 2 (viii) of the prevalent transfer guidelines which states that considering a large number of teachers have their spouses working in non-transferable Govt. Service at Port Blair, tenure would be reduced to half the tenure fixed for other categories and teachers in different zones and their cases of transfer back to earlier posting or to other zones can be considered only after they have completed half the tenure for zone (subject to completion of academic session) and hence, as the applicant has never-served Zone II the question of her completion of half the tenure or, retention at Port Blair on spouse ground does not arise. The respondents have further gone on to state that GSSS Manglutan is a low enrolment school wherein one Principal and two Vice-Principals have been retained by virtue of Court's orders and that there are about 40 schools under the administration in the Educational Zones I, II, III and IV which are functioning without any regular Principal or Vice-Principal. 5. The main point of determination before us is whether there is any illegality in the speaking order dated 19.7.2018 as impugned in the instant Original Application and also in the transfer order dated 13.3.2018 which had been challenged in two subsequent O.A.s. 6. (i) The Tribunal while disposing of the earlier Original Application had directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representation consequent to which the speaking order was issued and hence, at the outset, we examine the contents of the prepresentation dated 19.3.2018, annexed as A-5 to the O.A. and reproduced below, in detail:- "To The Director Department of Education A & N Administration Port Blair Sub:-Transfer from G.S.S.S. Manglutan to G.S.S. Mus-regarding Sir, I am to say that after 11 years of service at different Schools in Middle & North Andaman, I was transferred to G.S.S.S. Manglutan during August 2017 only. Now within 07 months of my posting at Manglutan, I have been again transferred to G.S.S. Mus, Car Nicobar, whereas posting in South Andaman at a stretch is 05 years. Since I was Bengali Medium Teacher, I could not be posted at Nicbar while my husband was posted there, as Bengali Medium is not there. After promotion to Vice-Principal, I was posted in various schools of North and Middle Andaman. Now I have only 04 years of service left, due to no fault of mine for not completing my tenure at Nicobar, I have been punished in this fag end of service and age within 07 months. Hence it is requested that my transfer to G.S.S. Mus within 07 months may be re-considered. Yours faithfully Sd/- Dated : 19/03/2018 (Swapna Podder) (Vice Principal) GSSS Manglutan The following is deciphered from the above representation: (a) That, the applicant had been serving for 11 years in different schools, in Middle and North Andaman. Hence it is requested that my transfer to G.S.S. Mus within 07 months may be re-considered. Yours faithfully Sd/- Dated : 19/03/2018 (Swapna Podder) (Vice Principal) GSSS Manglutan The following is deciphered from the above representation: (a) That, the applicant had been serving for 11 years in different schools, in Middle and North Andaman. (b) That, the applicant was transferred to GSSS Manglutan during August, 2017 and that within seven months of posting at GSSS Manglutan, had been again transferred to GSS Mus, Car Nicobar although the posting tenure at South Andaman is five years. (c) Because the applicant was a Bengali Medium teacher, she could not be posted at Nicobar during her spouse's posting therein as there was no Bengali Medium School at Car Nicobar at that point not time. (d) The applicant has only four years of service left to superannuate. II. Next, we refer to the transfer policy dated 30.7.2007 (Annexure A-4 to the O.A.) which is extracted below and wherefrom the following is deduced:- ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT Port Blair, dated the 30th July, 2007 CIRCULAR Sub : Transfer policy - regarding XXXXXXXXX "2. TENURE OF POSTING : Normal tenure of. posting in different groups of Islands is as under: Zone Group of Islands Tenure of posting Zone A South Andaman District; exoept little Andaman, Havelock, Neil island & Offices of the A & N Administration located at mainland 03 years Zone B Middle & North Andaman 03 years Zone C Little Andaman, Havelock & Neil Island 02 years Zone D Car Nicobar, Campbell Bay Nancowrie & Kamorta Group A & B-02 years Group C & D-01 years Zone E Katchal, Teressa, Chowra & Little Nicobar Same as Zone D Xxxxxxxxx 4(ii) Transfer of officials shall be made strictly in accordance with the period of stay of officials in that station the official with more tenure being considered first for such posting from one Group of Island to other Port Blair. Xxxxxxxxx (vi) As far as possible, officials haying less than 2 years of service left shall be allowed a posting of his choice and should not be transferred from that post within that period unless there are compelling administrative exigencies. Xxxxxxxxx (xi) Posting of husband and wife will preferably be made at the same station, if the service conditions permits. However, there are only guidelines and not mandatory. 8. Xxxxxxxxx (xi) Posting of husband and wife will preferably be made at the same station, if the service conditions permits. However, there are only guidelines and not mandatory. 8. REPRESENTATION FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFER Representation, if any, from the officers & staff regarding their transfer should be entertained only after they report at their new place of posting. Xxxxxxxxx" The prevalent transfer policy dated 5.12.2014 (Annexure R-5 to the reply) are next examined in detail and the following are extracted and deduced therefrom: ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT NOTIFICATION Port Blair, dated the 5th December, 2014 xxxxxxxxx 2. (ii) Normally, all Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff during their service career are required to render minimum service in each Zone as given below:- Zone-I 02 years Zone-I(A) 01 years Zone-II 02 years/03 years as the case may be Zone-III & Zone-IV 10 years Zone-V & VI 15 years (iii) Normally the minimum continuous tenure in-each of the aforesaid Zones shall be as follows: Zone-I 02 years Zone-I(A) 01 years Zone-II Car Nicobar and shoal Bay – 19 with continuous posting of tenure of two years for Little Andaman and long Island with continuous posting tenure of three years. Zone-III 04 years Zone-IV 04 years Zone-V 05 years Zone-VI 05 years However, Teachers who have served in Zone - 1(A) for one year will be exempted from serving in Zone-1 Xxxxxx (vii) Normally the request of teachers officials whose spouses are also working in the Education Department for posting in the same station shall be considered sympathetically subject to availability of vacant posts for both of them at the station. The request for posting them together in Zone V & VI shall be considered provided they have completed their tenure in Zone-I to IV. Otherwise, their cases will normally be considered for costing together in outlying areas. Similarly request of one of the spouses to allow to continue in a particular area will be decided on merit basis. (viii) Considering that a large number of teachers have their spouses working in non-transferable Govt. Service at Port Blair. It may not be possible to continuously keep the teachers posted at Port Blair. Similarly request of one of the spouses to allow to continue in a particular area will be decided on merit basis. (viii) Considering that a large number of teachers have their spouses working in non-transferable Govt. Service at Port Blair. It may not be possible to continuously keep the teachers posted at Port Blair. However, tenure will be reduced to half of the tenure fixed for other categories (except Zone-IA) of teachers in different Zones and their cases for transfer back or other Zones can be considered after they have completed half the tenure prescribed for Zone (Subject to completion of academic session. xxxxxxxxx (xvi) Teachers who attained age of 55 years of above shall be considered for their desired place of posting as far as possible subject to the following conditions: (a) Those who have already served the prescribed tenure at least in Four Zones and with service of prescribed tenure in any one of the Hard Zones, namely, Zone I, II & III. (b) Those whose children may be studying in Class XII in Port Blair area or respective stations of the posting. (c) Genuine request desired posting on medical grounds subject to written recommendation of Medical Board. (d) Those who have already crossed 59 years of age and are retiring within the academic session, itself and transferring them at midway of the session may not be in the public interest, apart from causing additional burden on Govt. in the shops of transfer T.A.s claim. The cases falling in the above four categories, the teachers who have already been attained 55 years will be posted or continued at the posting of their choice, subject to availability of vacancies. III. The Tribunal, while disposing of O.A. No. 429 of 2018 had directed as follows:- "6. Accordingly, we direct the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 2 (Chief Secretary) to consider the case of the applicant by keeping in mind the transfer guidelines within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Whatever decision, arrived at by the authorities, shall be reasoned and speaking and shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith." Hence, the directions of the Tribunal were to consider the case of the applicant while keeping in mind the transfer guidelines. Whatever decision, arrived at by the authorities, shall be reasoned and speaking and shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith." Hence, the directions of the Tribunal were to consider the case of the applicant while keeping in mind the transfer guidelines. In the context, we examine the speaking order dated 19.7.2018 impugned in the instant O.A.:- ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION Port Blair, dated the 19th July, 2018 ORDER NO. 1937 Whereas, Smt. Swapna Poddar working as Vice-Principal, under the Education Department, was transferred from Govt. Senior Secondary School, Manglutan, South Andaman to Govt. Secondary School, Mus, Car Nicobar Vide DE's Order No. 576 dated 13th March, 2018 has filed an Original Application before the Hon'ble CAT, Calcutta Bench being OA No. 351/429/2018 for setting aside the transfer order issued by Directorate of Education and to retrain the respondent authorities from releasing the applicant from her present place of posting. And whereas, the instant matter was disposed of by the Hon'ble CAT, Kolkata Bench on 28/03/2018, whereby the following judgment and order was passed by the learned Tribunal. "As the applicant has already made a representation before the authorities for consideration of her case and for cancellation of the transfer order which is pending consideration before the authorities, we deem it fit and proper to direct the department to take a decision on the representation. Accordingly we direct the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 2 (Chief Secretary) to consider the case of the applicant by keeping in mind the transfer guidelines within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Whatever decision, arrived at by the authorities shall be reasoned and speaking and shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith. Further ordered for 7 days stay after taking a decision by the authorities be maintained so that if any grievances is left, the applicant shall approach the authorities for redressal of her grievances. The OA stands disposed of." And whereas, in compliance with directions of the Hon'ble tribunal, the representation of the applicant dated, 19/03/2018 which was pending consideration was examined on merit and the following points were noted: I. That the present transfer of Smti, Swapna Poddar, Vice-Principal was made on account of her station seniority in the post of Vice-Principals. II. The OA stands disposed of." And whereas, in compliance with directions of the Hon'ble tribunal, the representation of the applicant dated, 19/03/2018 which was pending consideration was examined on merit and the following points were noted: I. That the present transfer of Smti, Swapna Poddar, Vice-Principal was made on account of her station seniority in the post of Vice-Principals. II. That the zone posting profile of Smt. Swapna Poddar, Vice-Principal is given below: Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone I II III IV V VI Nil Nil Nil 15.02 Yrs. 9.08 Yrs. 8.09 Yrs. III. That as per transfer guidelines, usually all teaching and non-teaching staff are required to render the following minimum service in each zone in their service career: Zone IA Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V Zone VI 01 year 02 yrs 02/03 yrs 04 yrs 04 yrs 05 yrs 05 yrs IV. That the applicant was transferred from Govt. SSS Manglutan, which is under Zone V to Govt. Secondary, School, Mus, Gar Nicobar which is under Zone II, entirely on the basis of her station seniority at South Andaman area (Zone - V & VI), and on the ground that she never served at Zone - II in her service career and the tenure of Zone - II which in 03 years in due to her. (Para - II above). V. That the applicant has rendered 18.7 years of service in Zone V & VI against the prescribed tenure of 15 years at Zone V & VI combinedly. Thus she has enjoyed 3.7 years of additional service at Port Blair area. VI. Since the applicant is a 'Group-B' Gazetted Officer, an administrative staff, as such her representation regarding Bengali Medium Teacher has no merit at all. VII. That, considering her station seniority at Zone V & VI together, she has been now transferred to Zone - II in consistency with notified Transfer Guidelines. Since the applicant has never served at Zone - II, as such, she has been transferred to GSS Mus, Car Nicobar under Zone - II to complete her prescribed tenure. VIII. That any change of her transfer to GSS Mus will disturb the well settled principles of transfer based on station seniority and will have long lasting impact on other staff as well. VIII. That any change of her transfer to GSS Mus will disturb the well settled principles of transfer based on station seniority and will have long lasting impact on other staff as well. Now Therefore, in view of the reasons narrated above, the Department is under the compulsion to follow the norms of Transfer Guidelines and to follow the Station Seniority. The representation dated, 19/03/2018 of the applicant is found to be devoid of merit and as such, her request for retention at Govt. SSS Manglutan under Zone - V cannot be acceded to, accordingly her representation is disposed of. The transfer of applicant made from Zone V to Zone II is fully reasonable. This is being issued in compliance to order dated 28/08/2018 passed by the Hon'ble CAT Calcutta bench, Kolkata in OA No. 351/429/2018 (Smt. Swapna Poddar Vs. The Andaman & Nicobar Admn. & Ors.) Smt. Swapna Poddar, Vice Principal May be informed accordingly. Sd/- Director (Education) A &N Administration (F. No. OA No. 351/429/2018) The following statements are gleaned from the speaking order:- (a) That, as per transfer guidelines, usually all teaching and non-teaching staff are required to render the following minimum service in each zones in their service career: Zone IA Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V Zone VI 01 year 02 yrs 02/03 yrs 04 yrs 04 yrs 05 yrs 05 yrs And that, in the case of the applicant, the following posting profile has been recorded in the speaking order: Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV Zone V Zone VI Nil Nil Nil 15.02 Yrs. 9.08 Yrs. 8.09 Yrs. As the applicant has not disputed her posting profile, it is, therefore, concluded that the applicant has never served in any of the zones, namely, Zone I, Zone II and Zone III in her entire service career. (a) That, the applicant has enjoyed 3.7 years of additional service at Port Blair. (b) That, the transfer orders were issued entirely on the basis of the applicant's station seniority at South Andaman area and on the ground that she never worked at Zone II in her service career. (a) That, the applicant has enjoyed 3.7 years of additional service at Port Blair. (b) That, the transfer orders were issued entirely on the basis of the applicant's station seniority at South Andaman area and on the ground that she never worked at Zone II in her service career. Upon a perusal and examination of the speaking order, we find that the speaking order has adhered to the directions of the Tribunal, as far as the orders directed the authorities to decide in accordance with the transfer guidelines and we do not find any infirmity in the same as the respondents have analyzed the applicant's representation vis-à-vis the guidelines. Learned Counsel for the applicant would argue that extraneous considerations have clouded the said speaking order. In this context, we revert to the representation of the applicant at Annexure A-5 to the O.A. and the deduction therefrom as noted in para 6(1) of this order. (a) The main contentions of the applicant were on the curtailment of her tenure, namely, after seven months at GSSS Manglutan which was duly considered by the Respondents while comparing her posting profile vis-à-vis that provided in the prevalent transfer guidelines. (b) The applicants contention that she could not be posted at Nicobar when her husband was posted therein is surprising as because she has averred in the pleadings that her spouse is working in a non-transferable post. (c) The applicant has also urged that she has only four years left to superannuate and, in this context, we refer to para (xvi) of the transfer policy of 2014 which categorically states that teachers who have attained age of 55 years or above shall be considered for their desired place of posting if they have served any one of the Hard Zones namely, Zone 1, Zone II or Zone III. It is an admitted fact that the applicant had not served any of the hard Zones i.e. I, II or III. (d) Learned Counsel for the applicant would argue that the transfer policy of 2014 does not apply to the applicant as the was engaged much earlier and it is the 2007 guidelines which would apply in her case. It is an admitted fact that the applicant had not served any of the hard Zones i.e. I, II or III. (d) Learned Counsel for the applicant would argue that the transfer policy of 2014 does not apply to the applicant as the was engaged much earlier and it is the 2007 guidelines which would apply in her case. Herein we refer to Clause 4(vi) of the said transfer policy which says that as far as possible, officials having less than two years of service left shall be allowed a posting of his choice and should not be transferred from that post within that period unless there are compelling administrative exigencies. The applicant, admittedly, having 4 years of service left cannot come within the purview and seek protection of Clause (vi) of the 2007 transfer guidelines as urged strenuously by her learned Counsel. We revert to the applicant's pleadings wherein the applicant has repeatedly referred to extraneous considerations in issuing the speaking order. The Tribunal in its order in earlier O.A. No. 429 of 2018, did not direct the respondents to consider her representation solely on the basis of 2007 guidelines. Hence, we cannot fault the respondent authorities for having issued a reasoned order in terms of their prevalent guidelines. Rather, we find that, the applicant's representation at Annexure A-5 to the O.A. was confined to the following grounds, namely:- (i) Truncation of her tenure in Zone V; (ii) Only four years left in her service career and (iii) her inability to be posted at Nicobar at an earlier point of time as there were no Bengali medium schools therein. In the instant pleading however, the applicant has raised issues on posting on spouse ground as well as her child's ongoing education. As these submissions were never made in the representation at Annexure A-5 to the O.A. we cannot fault the respondents for not having passed orders on such extraneous issues. Nevertheless, the respondents in their reply, have referred to sub-para 2 (viii) of prevalent transfer guidelines on spouse ground which also does not come to the support of the applicant. As these submissions were never made in the representation at Annexure A-5 to the O.A. we cannot fault the respondents for not having passed orders on such extraneous issues. Nevertheless, the respondents in their reply, have referred to sub-para 2 (viii) of prevalent transfer guidelines on spouse ground which also does not come to the support of the applicant. In the 2007 policy relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicant, we detect Para 4(xi) which states that, "posting of husband and wife will preferably be made at the same station, if the service conditions permits." The respondents have contended that there are 40 educational institutions which are devoid of regular Principals/Vice-Principals and a low enrolment school such as SSS Manglutan is saddled with one Principal and two Vice-Principals. The applicant has not been able to furnish any of her service conditions that allows her permanent tenure in Port Blair to adjust her posting with the nontransferable posting of her spouse. Hence, it is difficult to conclude that the service conditions of the applicant permitted her to continue to function as the Vice-Principal of a low enrolment School where 40 other educational institutions are headless and expectedly any farsighted administration would attempt to fill up such vacancies forthwith. (iv) During hearing learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contends that the tenure of posting referred to in the guidelines relate to institution school wise posting. Both transfer policies of 2007 and 2017, however, refer to zonal tenure which implies aggregate tenure in all schools included in a zone. (v) Learned Counsel for the applicant strongly urges that the speaking order issued by an authority other than the Chief Secretary is a nullity as the Tribunal had specifically directed the Chief Secretary to consider the representation. Respondents have, however, produced their office records in response to Tribunal's directions to show that the order was issued with the consideration and approval of the Chief Secretary. In the absence of any specific contradictions thereon, there is no reason to believe that such approval was issued without the Chief Secretary having applied his mind on the same. The Director of Education, however, while conveying the orders of Chief Secretary, had indeed omitted reference to the approval of the Chief Secretary. This can be rectified by a corrigendum and the respondents are granted liberty to issue their corrigendum to such effect. 7. The Director of Education, however, while conveying the orders of Chief Secretary, had indeed omitted reference to the approval of the Chief Secretary. This can be rectified by a corrigendum and the respondents are granted liberty to issue their corrigendum to such effect. 7. All the Tribunal's interference has been ought to quash/set aside the speaking order dated 19.7.2018 as well as the transfer order dated 13.3.2018, we would be guided by the Hon'ble Apex Court's decisions on the scope of judicial review on transfer. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 and in State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh, (2010)7 Supreme 666 , it was categorically held that an order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only when the order is vitiated by mala fide or where it has been made in violation of statutory provisions. (a) The applicant could not establish that the transfer order dated 13.3.2018 and the consequent speaking order dated 19.7.2018 reiterating the same were violative of either the 2007 or the 2014 transfer guidelines. Hence, we conclude that no statutory provisions have been violated thereby. (b) On the issue of mala fide, we refer to the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 148 wherein if was held as follows:- "......In an appropriate case, if was possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of institution and vague suggestions." The applicant in her pleading has alleged that the impugned orders are a product of malice in law and malice in fact. Nothing has been brought on record to establish any wrongful intention of the Respondent authorities or any deliberate intent to commit an injury. In Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 165, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:- "It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by male fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. Xxxxxxxxx ......The Division Bench of the Tribunal which quashed the said transfer on the ground of malice of the Chairman of the Tribunal did so against the material on record and the facts beyond controversy which borders on judicial in propriety." We further refer to Hon'ble Apex Court's dicts in Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Ltd. & Ors., (2013)1 SCC 524 wherein the burden of proof was placed on the one who alleges malafide. There being absolutely nothing on applicant's record to establish malafide, we conclude that the applicant has not been able to prove malafide as the Respondents were operating well within their guidelines. In O.A. No. 350/00695/2018 (Ved Prakash Mishra v. A& N Administration), relied upon by the Respondents, the Tribunal observed as follows:- "9. We have already noted that the allotted tenure of Zone 1 is 2 years and the applicant has already served at the zone for 3 years 2 months. Therefore, he is not permitted to raise a hue and cry on the ground that the transfer is a premature one." In this original application also, the applicant has been in Zone V to 9.08 years and cannot insist that her transfer from one particular educational institution after 7 months, within Zone V, is premature and is violative of policy. Hence, as the applicant could neither establish violation of statutory provisions or mala-fide, the orders so impugned do not call for judicial intervention. 8. The O.A. is, therefore, dismissed on merit interim order, if any, stands vacated. No costs.