1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1258 of 2010 Smt.Anita Bhagoji Nawle. ...Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.1290 of 2010 Smt.Shrutika Gitendra Mashelkar. ...Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.V.N.Tayade, for Petitioners. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent-State. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED: 18th FEBRUARY,2010 P.C.: 1. By these petitions, the petitioners who are teachers working under Zilla Parishad, Thane, posted 2 within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Bhiwandi, are challenging orders, passed by the Block Development officer, of transferring them from one place to the other. The area of a Panchayat Samiti normally does not exceeds 40 kilometers, therefore, it can be safely said that all the places of transfer are within the radius of 40 km. Admittedly, there are no statutory rules framed regulating the transfers. By Government Resolution dated 30.4.2008, guidelines have been issued regulating transfer of employees of the Zilla Parishad. In these petitions transfers are not challenged on the ground that they have been ordered malafidely by the competent authority. There are no allegations of malice made against the Authority. Nobody has been joined by name as Respondent to the petition for making allegations of malice. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case B.Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka & ors., AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1955 contending that the transfer orders are liable to be set aside. In our opinion, the observations of 3 the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case B.Varadha Rao referred to above, do not support the contention of the petitioners. Perusal of that judgment shows that the Supreme Court has, in that judgment, relied on its own observations in the judgment in the case E.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 . They read as under:- It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to malafide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers, cannot but be held as malafide. A transfer is malafide when it 4 is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose than is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair. It is clear from the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court that transfer is an incident of service and the authority has a wide discretion in the matter of ordering transfer. Therefore, unless there are malafide alleged and the case is made out that the Authority ordering transfer was actuated by malice, in our opinion, the order of transfer cannot be interfered with. It cannot be forgotten that the places where the petitioners are transferred are within the radius not more than 40 kms, and considering the present means of communication available, there is hardly any possibility of displacement of any of the petitioner at a very distant place. In this view of the matter therefore, 5 in our opinion, it will not be appropriate to interfere with the transfer orders in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions are, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)