JUDGEMENT Shacheednra Dwivedi, J. -- 1. In this petition, preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer from Gwalior to District Guna. The petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk in Nyayik Zila Sthapna, Gwalior, and was posted as Nayab Nazir Malkhana. 2. During his tenure on the post, a theft was committed of a large sum of cash and other articles in the night of 7-7-90. Again on 29-8-90 a paper chit, bearing the signature of the petitioner dated 25-8-90 pasted on the door of Malkhana by petitioner was found to be wet and the key of the lock was found on the lock itself. 3. The petitioner was in-charge of Malkhana, in District Nazarat Gwalior. The matter was reported to Police which is said to be under investigation. In the meantime, a post of Lower Division Clerk fell vacant at Guna, and the petitioner was transferred there under the orders of Hon 'ble the Chief Justice. It is submitted by the petitioner that his transfer is malafide and arbitrary and the order has been passed to accommodate one Smt. Vijay Gour, a Lower Division Clerk from Shivpuri (not made a party in this petition). 4. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the policy of the State Government which is alleged to have been adopted by the High Court, and is filed with this petition as Annexure D and E , to further submit that under the policy, the petitioner cannot be transferred out of the District of Gwalior. It is further contended by the petitioner that the order of his transfer is violative of the principles of natural justice and would cause serious prejudice to him in his departmental inquiry and the police investigation. 5. The contentions raised by the petitioner are seriously and vehemently countered by the respondents submitting that the petitioner has been transferred under the Administrative exigency, by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner's transfer is not by way of punishment and by the transfer no prejudice can be said to be caused either in the inquiry or in the police investigation, as the petitioner would be provided proper opportunity to defend himself. 6. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner's transfer is not by way of punishment and by the transfer no prejudice can be said to be caused either in the inquiry or in the police investigation, as the petitioner would be provided proper opportunity to defend himself. 6. There is no justiciable right in the matter of transfer and posting of an employee and it is within the discretion of the competent authority to post and transfer an employee, taking into account all the relevant factors and by exercising the discretion impartially and dispassionately, but it the order is passed malafidely under the colourable exercise of jurisdiction, it would certainly be open to judicial scrutiny. An order of transfer, if can be shown to be unreasonable and arbitrary or capricious, would amount to be passed in bad faith or malafidely. A Malafide action is deemed to be non-est in law as an arbitrary action would have no nexus with the object of exigency of service, which it purports to serve. 7. In this petition, the petitioner has not impleaded Smt. Vijay Gour as one of the respondents, although allegations of her accommodation are made against her, writing of D.O. letters is an office routine and considering the contention of the petitioner. it is to be noticed that the transfer order does not reflect any accommodation having been made for her on the stale prayer, as it was made more than 1 1/2 year back with no renewal thereof. Further, in every case of transfer, a chain of postings has to be completed for filling up to the resultant vacancies and the posting of an employee cannot be taken to be made to accommodate the other. 8. The transfers are made from one place to another, looking to the character and quality of the work and the capacity of the servant. The question of transfer came to be considered by Supreme Court in The Management of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. The Workmen (A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1283), and it was observed that:- "There is also no doubt that the management of the Bank is in the best position to judge how to distribute its employees between the different branches. The question of transfer came to be considered by Supreme Court in The Management of the Syndicate Bank Ltd. v. The Workmen (A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1283), and it was observed that:- "There is also no doubt that the management of the Bank is in the best position to judge how to distribute its employees between the different branches. We are therefore, of opinion that Industrial Tribunals should be very careful before they interfere with the orders made by the Banks in discharge of their managerial functions. It is true that if an order of transfer is made Malafide or for some ulterior purpose, like punishing an employee for his trade union activities, the Industrial Tribunals should interfere and set aside such an order of transfer, because the mala fide exercise of power is not considered to be the legal exercise of the power given by law. But the finding of Malafide should be reached by Industrial Tribunals only if there is sufficient and proper evidence in support of the finding". 9. Further the Apex Court in Smt. Pushpika v. State of West Bengal, (1972 S.L.R. (10), found that: "Orders of transfer of Government servants like any other Government administrative or executive orders are passed invariably for administrative purposes or in public interest. Such orders normally are outside the purview of examination by Courts of law. But an executive decision or action or an administrative decision is liable to be struck down if it is used malafidely or for a collateral purpose." 10. Indeed, it behoves us to reiterate once again the settled law, least there lingers, any misconception about it. Unless otherwise is specifically provided, transfer from one place to another. in exigency of service, is rather a condition of service, which must he abided by the servant. There is no right in him to object to his transfer unless that action is challenged as mala fide. In Tarachand's case (A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 567), it was held by Supreme Court that to establish malus animus, all necessary particulars must the stated that the Court may successfully carry out an investigation into the allegations and that in the absence thereof. the petition would he liable to he dismissed. 11. In the instant case these requirements arc not at all satisfied and there is absolutely nothing on record to establish or even to presume the malafides or the action. the petition would he liable to he dismissed. 11. In the instant case these requirements arc not at all satisfied and there is absolutely nothing on record to establish or even to presume the malafides or the action. It is beyond our comprehension how any grievance can he raised when the petitioner has been transferred on the vacant post of one Smt. Neelima Kanmalkar at Guna. under the service exigency, for filling up of the vacant post. 12. It was next argued that under the State policy filed with this petition as Annexure-D & E the petitioner cannot be transferred and posted out side the district at Gwalior. The respondents have challenged this contention submitting that the said State policy has not been adopted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 13. We have considered the two Annexures- D & E relied upon by the petitioner and even if the State policy he taken to be adopted by High Court, under clause R of Annexure-D, as a special case, the transfer is made permissible. Also under Annexure-E, State Government has provided under amended clause 12 that a Government employee of class III & IV, 'should not Ordinarily he transferred out of the district' but it is further provided that 'Keeping in view the requirements or public service, transfer can be made out of the district.' 14. In Vardhu Rao's case, (1986 C.C.L.J. S.N. 50), certain observations were made by the Apex Court, but those arc also indicative of Government's duty to act bonafide. It was held under the authority that in the matter of transfer of Class III & IV employees, the Government should be more careful and that there should not he frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers, as that would result in uprooting a family. Despite the observations, however, the moot point is that the petitioner drew a blank in that case and the petition was dismissed as meritless by Supreme Court. 15. Inter-district transfers are in the prevailing practice and the petitioner himself was benefited by such transfer as earlier the petitioner was transferred to Datia in 1978 and therefrom to Shivpuri in 1984. He came from Shivpuri to Gwalior also on transfer and the argument advanced by the petitioner has no merit. 16. It was lastly submitted that by transfer from Gwalior, the petitioner would he highly prejudiced in his departmental inquiry and the police investigation. He came from Shivpuri to Gwalior also on transfer and the argument advanced by the petitioner has no merit. 16. It was lastly submitted that by transfer from Gwalior, the petitioner would he highly prejudiced in his departmental inquiry and the police investigation. We are unable to agree to this plea as the petitioner's apprehension has no basis. District Guna not being very or oil is within Gwalior region and is centrally located, connected by rail and road with quick frequency of services. On the contrary the petitioners continuance at Gwalior, may he adverse to the interest of justice and the public and administrative cause as it may effect the evidence that may come forwarded in the departmental inquiry. 17. The petitioner's apprehension is unfounded and pre-mature, since the petitioner has not been divided his defence, in any manner. As found by their lordships of Supreme Court in Gujrat Electricity Board & another v. Atmaram Sugnomal Poswani (A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1433), that the:- "Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." 18. No circumstances have been brought out to establish or show any malafides or arbitrariness in passing the order of transfer Annexure-A and contention in this regard is also devoid of substance. 19. As a sequel of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this petition, for interference in the order of transfer, Annexure-A and the petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.