C. V. JANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2-8-1991 transferring the petitioner from Navsari to Bharuch passed by the respondent No. 1 D. S. P. Valsad under the directions of respondent No. 3 Director General of Police. ( 2 ) IT is the petitioners case that he has been frequently transferred within a short span of time and he was posted at Navsari by order dated 12 He alleges that he is now ordered to be transferred within a period of only five months and while he was on leave sanctioned for the period from 29-7-91 to 22-8-91 he came to know from the Press Note Annexure that he has been ordered to be transferred to Broach. ( 3 ) NOTICE was ordered to issue on 19-8-91 and it was made returnable on 28-8-91. The petitioner has made the following submission : (I) His efficiency has been recognised by awards 74 Rewards and his name was also rec- ommended for President award; (II) He has been frequently transferred in violation of the guidelines contained in the Gujarat Police Manual; (III) His three children are studying at Valsad and he would not be in a position to get admission to them in the school at Broach in the mid of the term; (IV) One Mr. B. I. Patel who has been serving at Navsari for the last 10 years is not ordered to be transferred while the petitioner was posted at Navsari only 5 months ago and there was no extraordinary reason to transfer him from Navsari to Broach; (V) According to the petitioner his transfer appears to have been made on the ground that three has been over set up in Valsad District and if that is so the officers who have been serving at Valsad District for more than 5 years should have been transferred as per the guidelines con- tained in Government Police Manual. ( 4 ) IT is not necessary to go into the merits of the factual contentions raised by the petitioner as they can be well decided by the higher authority in the Police hierarchy as the per directions that would be given by this court. ( 4 ) IT is not necessary to go into the merits of the factual contentions raised by the petitioner as they can be well decided by the higher authority in the Police hierarchy as the per directions that would be given by this court. One fact is absolutely clear that the petitioner has been order to be transferred within a period of five months even though no Police Officers should be disturbed from one station before completion of his tenure of three years unless there are extra- ordinary reasons for doing so in order to subserve public interest. One fact is absolutely clear that the petitioner has been order to be transferred within a period of five months even though no Police Officers should be disturbed from one station before completion of his tenure of three years unless there are extra- ordinary reasons for doing so in order to subserve public interest. It need not be said that even though transfer is an incidence of service every transfer would entail some hardship and transfer in the midst of an academic term would involve the greatest hardship ( 5 ) IN this context it would not be irrelevant to make some observations regarding the situ- ation that drives a government employee to rush to the Court of Law in order to challenge his transfer it is exactly for warding ors the possibility of arbitrariness that guidelines have been evolved by the Government and the Police Department and the Director of Education which are to be kept in mind at the time of passing the order of transfer so that a transfer may not be ordered out of mala fides or on extraneous considerations It is always provided in such guide- lines that an employee is not to be disturbed from a particular station for a period of three years (for 10 years in the case of a teacher); that an employee should not be transferred in the midst of an academic term; that he should be posted near his home town when he is about to retire; that petty employees should not be transferred out of a particular district or region the place of service of his or her spouse also may be considered at the time of his transfer in order to keep them together as far as possible and an approval of the higher authority should be ob- tained if some departure is to be made from such guidelines Such guidelines which are formu- lated on a humanitarian approach have to be observed by the concerned authority in its letter and spirit and it becomes the duly of the authorilies who have formulated the guidelines to en- force them They can enforce such guidelines provided a breach thereof is brought to their notice; no provision in fact is made for bringing the cases of such breach to their notice ( 6 ) IT should not be forgotten that ordinarily an employee is not inclined to come in conflict with his superior by approaching a Court of Law and to spend his time and energy by passing through the lengthy travails of litigation It is only when an impossible situation is created that the employee as a last resort springs like a cornered wild animal and if diverts his thereafter loses his balance of mind and diverts his wrath to the innocent common man and ultimately strikes at the societys peace and equilibrium If he has entered the service with a spirit of dedication he becomes disillusioned and creates an antagonistic reaction and vicious circle or overall demor- alisation. Before this consequence ensues the employee has something to say about the order of transfer which appears unjust to him and it becomes a duty of the higher authorities or the Review Committee or the Court to hear him and then to strike a balance between the employees grievances and the employers claim of administrative exigencies. ( 7 ) MOST of the petitions challenging the orders of transfer contain complaints about mala fides of the transferring authority or the higher-ups including Ministers about extraneous consid- erations like an attempt to oblige or accommodate somebody personal difficulties and hard- ships relating to the health of family members and education of children which might not have been considered by the transferring authorities and violation of the guidelines contained in Government Resolutions or the Police Manual As and when such allegations and grievances are made in the petitions Notice has to be issued to the respondents in order to afford them an opportunity to meet the allegations In order that such confrontation may be avoided the authori- lies have to evolve some mechanism which would consider such grievances and redress them if possible It is also necessary that transfers should be ordered to be effective about a fortnight after the service of the order so that the concerned employee may approach the higher authority during that period and try to got the necessary reliefs Such a higher authority can be a Transfer Review Committee Such an inbuilt mechanism will got rid of the possible arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power It need not be stressed that the Honble Supreme Court as well as this High Court has condemned the orders passed by the Executive if they are mala fide or passed on extraneous considerations in order to accommodate or oblige somebody. ( 8 ) SO far as the present case is concerned the petitioner is directed to make a representation against the order of his transfer to respondent No. 4 namely Secretary to Home Department within a period of one week i. e. upto 6/09/1991 ventilating all his grievances that have been set out in this petition and if such a representation is made the respondent No. 4 will decide it on or before 16/09/1991 after hearing the petitioner if he so insists and communicate the result thereof to the petitioner on or before 20/09/1991. Till then the order of transfer will not be implemented further. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations and directions Mr. Y. N. Oza learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition. Leave granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. .