H. Baruah, J.

1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner has challenged his transfer as Principal, Para Medical Training Institute, Kohima vice Dr. J. Chase transferred by notification dated 03.09.2009. It would be appropriate to state that the writ petitioner herein before issue of the notification was holding the post of Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur. It would also be appropriate to say that by this impugned notification dated 03.09.2009 altogether 16 numbers of doctors were transferred and posted against the post shown against their name including the petitioner.

2. In the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U. P. & Ors.; reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case between B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka: (1986) 4 SCC 131: AIR 1986 SC 1955; Shilpi Base Vs. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659: AIR 1991 SC 532; Union of India Vs. N.P. Thomas. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704, AIR 1993 SC 1605; Union of India Vs. S.L.Abbas, (1993)4 SCC 357; AIR 1993 SC 2444, in paragraph - 4, the Apex Court held that transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision and, therefore, the decision rendered by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 1110 (SB) of 2005 was not interfered with. In paragraph-7 of the judgment the Apex Court following the Principles laid down in Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India. 1993 (1) SCC 148, AIR 1993 SC1236; National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan, 2001 (8) SCC 574, AIR 2001 SC 3309 and State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal; (2001) 5 SCC 508, AIR 2001 SC 1748 held that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders. From the above it could be understood that an order of transfer can be interfered with by a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution if the petitioner succeeds to substantiate any of the grounds/circumstances. Discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is prohibited while going a judicial review of the transfer, if the transfer is not actuated with malice, hatred, mala fide etc.

3. The Apex Court while dealing with the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas: AIR 1993 SC 2444 in paragraph-7 held as follows:

7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter of the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.

The Apex Court in the case (supra) held that the appropriate authority is the best judge to take a decision who should be transferred where. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of the statutory provision Court cannot interfere with it. It also held that while ordering transfer the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government in the subject. It also makes an obligatory on the part of the appropriate authority to consider representation submitted by the transferee in respect of his/her transfer having regard to the exigency of the administration.

4. Thus the ratio laid