ORDER B.C. Saksena, J. - After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on 23-7-1992, by a short order the writ petition was dismissed summarily for reasons to follow. Now I proceed to record my reasons for dismissing the writ petition. 2. The petitioner who is Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, U. P. was transferred on deputation to Indo-Dutch Nalkoop Rigs Division, Gorakhpur and he joined there pursuant to order dated 1-8-1989. By order dated 31st May, 1992 the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from Indo-Dutch Nalkoop Rigs Division, Gorakhpur to Nalkoop Division, Mirzapur. The petitioner did not carry out the said transfer and by an order dated 9th July 1992 he has been asked to hand over charge immediately. The said order has been passed by the Executive Engineer pursuant to order dated 30th June, 1992 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department. 3. The grounds to challenge the said order taken in the petition is that the order is unreasonable and arbitrary and is not in public interest. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the Chief Engineer, Establishment, who is the Superintending Engineer of the Circle, and the Executive Engineer of the Division have recommended to the Engineer-in-chief for cancelling the order of petitioner's transfer. It was indicated that the transfer of the petitioner is not in public interest. The Indo-Dutch Rigs Khand is likely to be wound up on completion of work in March, 1993 and it will not be proper to transfer the petitioner from the Central Store where property worth crores of rupees is there. 4. Transfer is an incident of service and the administrative authorities are in a better position to appreciate the administrative needs and exigencies. Recommendation of the concerned authorities, no doubt, was there but it is not possible to hold that the Engineer-in-Chief has not considered said recommendation while passing the impugned order of transfer. 5. The petitioner admittedly holds a transferable post. It is not within the legal right of an employee to claim to be retained at a particular post and place and he is liable to be transferred. It is pleaded that the transfer order violates the guidelines contained in the policy decision of the State Government. 5. The petitioner admittedly holds a transferable post. It is not within the legal right of an employee to claim to be retained at a particular post and place and he is liable to be transferred. It is pleaded that the transfer order violates the guidelines contained in the policy decision of the State Government. The said Government order has been a matter of agitation in several writ petitions filed in this Court and it has been held that it contains guidelines for the officers ordering transfer and it creates no legal right or immunity from transfer. It is fairly well settled that transfer is an incident of service and an order of transfer will not be interfered with unless violation of any statutory mandatory Rule is shown or it can be shown that the order has been passed in colourable exercise of power or for oblique motive. The policy guidelines cannot be construed to be a statutory Rule. The allegation that the order of transfer is against public interest deserves to be rejected as no sufficient material has been placed to satisfy the Court that the order for the petitioner's transfer is against public interest. There is a clear recital in the order of transfer that it has been passed in public interest and for administrative reasons. The said recital is not open to judicial review. Further, in the instant case no material has been placed on record to take a different view except that though the concerned authorities at the level of Chief Engineer, Establishment and the Superintending Engineer have made recommendation for cancellation of the petitioner's transfer order, but the same is merely recommendatory and not binding on the authority who has passed the order of transfer. Reference may be made here to the following Supreme Court decisions which clearly lay down that the Courts should be slow in interfering with the order of transfer in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution:- (1) AIR 1991 SC 532 , Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar. (2) 1989 (3) SCC 445 , Union of India v. H.N. Kirtania. (3) AIR 1936 SC 1955 , Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka. 6. In the circumstances detailed above, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.