JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - Is it not the time to remind ourselves that liberal interference by this Court in transfer matters would amount to creating a chaos in the administration if the Government, which would not be conducive to public interest? There is hardly any dispute that transfer orders are passed on administrative grounds and due to exigencies of service. 2. This petition is directed against the transfer order dated 25.1.1992 by means of which the petitioner has been transferred from Varanasi to Garhwal division. 3. The petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer at Block Deegh, District Varanasi. District authorities were holding a meeting on 9.1.1992. Some trouble arose between the petitioner and the Additional District Magistrate (Administration) during the said meeting. The matter was reported to the District Magistrate. The petitioner was required to submit his reply to the Chief Development Officer. He did so on 27.1.1992. 4. In the meantime the order of transfer was passed by the Commissioner Village Development. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this transfer order was punitive in nature. It was passed on the complaint of the opposite party No.6 before passing the impugned order an opportunity of hearing should have been given to him. The submission is not acceptable. 6. Transfer orders are usually passed after a Government servant has put in service for three years or so as the rules provide. Sometime when it is felt that retaining a particular Government servant at particular place will not be in the interest of administration he can be transferred even before that. There can be many reasons for this. One of the reasons may be that there was no co-ordination of that officer with others. If the order of transfer is passed on this ground that will not give him a right of personal hearing. 7. The right of hearing contemplates about the existence of some legal right. A Government servant has no legal right to stay at any particular place. The question whether or not any rule of natural justice has been contravened in any particular case should be decided not under any preconceived notion but in the light of the relevant statutory provision or the principle enunciated in the Constitution of India itself. A Government servant has no legal right to stay at any particular place. The question whether or not any rule of natural justice has been contravened in any particular case should be decided not under any preconceived notion but in the light of the relevant statutory provision or the principle enunciated in the Constitution of India itself. While doing so it should be borne in mind that this right comes into play when the administrative order directly affects the civil consequences. In the instant case the petitioner has no right to stay at Varanasi. Transfer orders are passed in terms of the condition of service. Extending the principle of natural justice in transfer matters may lead to abuse of the said principle. It will paralyse the working of the Government which cannot be ignored by the Court. So I am of the view that the petitioner was not entitled for any opportunity of being heard. 8. While exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court can interfere with the transfer order in rare cases if it is ex-facie shown that it has been passed as a measure of punishment or by way of victimisation or on malafide grounds. But we will have to be extremely cautious in interfering with such administrative orders. 9. The petitioner has made allegation of mala fide against the respondent No.6 Sri Adarsh Kumar Srivastava, Additional District Magistrate, Gyanpur. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the petition. I am of the view that the petitioner has miserably failed to establish mala fide. The averments so made show that there is an effort on the part of the petitioner to stay at Varanasi somehow or the other. 10. In the instant case it has come on record that the petitioner was not pulling on well with the district authorities. In order to run the administration smoothly the order of transfer was passed. Retaining him at Varanasi would have created further problem in the district administration. I am satisfied that the order of transfer has been passed only on administrative ground and nothing else. 11. In a recent case decided by the Supreme Court Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1991 SC 532 , it was held. Retaining him at Varanasi would have created further problem in the district administration. I am satisfied that the order of transfer has been passed only on administrative ground and nothing else. 11. In a recent case decided by the Supreme Court Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1991 SC 532 , it was held. "In my opinion the Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or other. He is liable to be transferred from one place to other. Transfers orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal right. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of the executive instruction or order, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead and affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the Courts continue to interfere with the day to day transfer orders issued by the Government against its subordinate officers, there will be a complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest." 12. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case Shanti Kumari v. Regional Dy. Director Health, 1981 (43) FLR 263 (SC) in which it was observed. "Transfer of Government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons. The Courts cannot interfere in such matters." In that case the breach of guidelines with regard to transfer in the department concerned was pointed out. The Supreme Court declined to interfere and merely stated that if it be so the authorities will look into the matter and redress the grievance of the employee concerned. 13. In the case P. Pushnakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board 1979 I LLJ 139, the Court expressed the view that for proper administration of Government and for effective administration the Court should always be lean in favour of the employer. Transfer orders are usually challenged to achieve something which is normally not permissible. 14. 13. In the case P. Pushnakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board 1979 I LLJ 139, the Court expressed the view that for proper administration of Government and for effective administration the Court should always be lean in favour of the employer. Transfer orders are usually challenged to achieve something which is normally not permissible. 14. In the case K.B. Shukla v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1136 , it was expressed that the Government alone was best suited to Judge as to the necessity of making of an order of transfer. The Courts should not judge about the existence of any such exigency as to justify the transfer order. Interference can be done only in case the order is vitiated by malafide or some other similar grounds. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision J.K. Dave v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1989 (59) FLR 514, in which only this much has been said that the Court can interfere in mattes of transfer only when the said order is exfacie penal or by way of victimisation. It further clarified that the Courts cannot interfere with order of transfers even it there are some irregularities or lapses. Mere allegation of matatide or discrimination will not make the order of transfer bad. For running the administration smoothly the Government has to be given a free play, of course with some riders. If it is not done, then the administrative machinery may collapse and may come to a grinding halt. In that case also the Court refused to interfere with the transfer order. 16. Practically the same view was expressed in the other two cases cited by him one Ram Das Prasad Srivastava v. The Division Railways Manager (personal) and Others 1984 (2) UPLBEC 1142 and the other Sangam Lal v. U.P. Education Director AIR 1957 All 70 . 17. Since I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to prove the averment of malalide or that the order was passed by way of punishment, the authorities cited by the learned counsel are of no assistance to him. 18. The last point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that when the petitioner joined the service there was a tacit understanding that transfer order would not be passed as a punitive measure. 18. The last point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that when the petitioner joined the service there was a tacit understanding that transfer order would not be passed as a punitive measure. He was protected under Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India. In view of the findings recorded in the preceding paragraphs that the order is not punitive, this point needs no further discussion. 19. No other point was pressed. 20. I find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed in limine.