JUDGMENT Hari Singh, Member (Adm).—A Junior Basic Trained Teacher, applicant Gopal Dass has in this application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prayed for :— (i) Quashing order dated July 8, 1993, Annexure A/3 relieving him in absentia from Government Primary School New Kangra and directing him to join at Salol in Kangra Block ; (ii) Issuing directions to the respondents to take his joining report either at Government Primary School New Kangra or his previous school Rajol (Rait Block). 2. Some relevant facts may firstly be stated. The applicant remained posted as a J. B. T Teacher at Rajol (Rait Block) for about a decade and during September 1992 he was transferred from there to Government Primary School Salol in Kangra Block. Subsequently vide office order, Annexure A/1 dated October 8, 1992 the District Primary Education Officer Kangra modified his order of transfer to Salol, issued earlier, and instead adjusted him temporarily in Government Primary School New Kangra. The applicant joined at New Kangra but vide impugned order Annexure A/3 dated July 8, 1993 he was relieved in absentia front the said school after about 9 months with a direction to join at Salol. The State Government, in the meantime, issued instructions Annexures A/2 and A/4 dated August 11, 1992 and July 2, 1993 respectively and under the later instructions where employees had not been relieved or had not joined the appointed stations their transfers were required to be stayed and such transfers were not to be implemented and were to be stayed at once. The applicant approached the Block Primary Education Officers, Dharamshala and Kangra, to accept his joining report but both of them refused to accept his joining report by saying that instructions Annexures A/2 and A/4 were not applicable to the employees of their Department. The impugned order has been assailed by the applicant on the grounds that: (i) The respondents have violated the orders (Annexures A/2 and A/4) by not accepting the joining report of the applicant either at New Kangra or at Rajol ; and (ii) The order of the respondents in the matter is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3. The impugned order has been assailed by the applicant on the grounds that: (i) The respondents have violated the orders (Annexures A/2 and A/4) by not accepting the joining report of the applicant either at New Kangra or at Rajol ; and (ii) The order of the respondents in the matter is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3. The rival contentions of the respondents, as stated in their reply verified on December 12, 1993 are that the applicant was at Government Primary School Rajol from November 12, 1981 onwards, for the last about 11 years, and in the transfer order of the applicant from Government Primary School Rajol to Government Primary School Salol there was no mention of Government Primary School New Kangra and as such the applicant, if adjusted, temporarily over there has no claim for the station and his relieving is in order and there is nothing illegal, arbitrary or unconstitutional in this case. It has further been averred that the temporary adjustment does not confer any right on the applicant to continue at Government Primary School New Kangra and that his transfer to Salol is existing and the applicant shall have to move to his original place of posting 4. We have heard Shri Rakesh Bharti, the learned Counsel for the -applicant and Shri Narinder Thakur, the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the applicant remained posted at Government Primary School Rajol since 1981 and was transferred from there after completion of his normal tenure and thus his transfer from Rajol cannot be faulted with. We are aware that transfer is an incidence of service and Government has power to transfer a civil servant from one place to another or to an equivalent post carrying same pay scale and to transfer him to the post on which he holds a lien. Order of Transfer of a Government servant is ordinarily made for administrative reasons and merely because the order causes inconvenience to the Government servant, it cannot be said that it visits him with evil consequences, We are further conscious that it is for the administration to decide how and to which place its employees are to be transferred. No Government servant can claim to remain at a particular place. No Government servant can claim to remain at a particular place. It is not for a court of law to go into the matter and adjudicate about the propriety of the transfer unless, of course, the transfer orders suffer from the vice of mala fide or have been issued in violation of relevant instructions. 6. The instant case has different dimensions all together. It is evident from order, Annexure A/1 that the applicant, under transfer from Rajol to Salol, had been adjusted, though temporarily, at New Kangra. It is admitted case of the parties that he has been getting his salary from the same institution and from nowhere else. Thus it can be safely inferred that the post of J B. T. Teacher is available in the said school. He had joined at Kangra under valid orders issued by the competent authority i. e. the District Primary Education Officer Kangra, after serving for over a decade at Rajol and after having joined at New Kangra the transfer had become fait-accompli and further disturbance of the applicant from New Kangra could only be ordered after completion of his normal tenure of three to five years. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicant is being transferred from New Kangra because of any complaint against him. The applicant has been continuing at Kangra in pursuant to the interim injunction issued by us on July 23, 1993 and has not completed a period of even two years at New Kangra since his joining there. If the impugned order is allowed to be implemented this will not only uproot the applicant prematurely from New Kangra, where he must have fully settled by now, but this will also be in violation of the Transfer Policy of the State Government prescribing a stay of three to five years at a particular station. It is well settled that once the administrative instructions or the executive orders are passed to lay down guidelines for doing a particular act, it would not be open to the State to say that it may or may not follow those guidelines or instructions See Asu Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 (3) SLR 783. 7. It is well settled that once the administrative instructions or the executive orders are passed to lay down guidelines for doing a particular act, it would not be open to the State to say that it may or may not follow those guidelines or instructions See Asu Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 (3) SLR 783. 7. The averment of the respondents that the applicant had been adjusted just temporarily at Kangra and his initial transfer from Rajol to Salol remained intact may have some substance but now that the applicant has stayed at New Kangra for about a year and half, inclusive of the period after issuance of temporary injunction in his favour, the applicants adjustment at New Kangra no longer remains temporary. The applicant had been relieved on July 8, 1993 in absentia i. e. in haste. It can thus be safely inferred that but for issuance of instruction dated July 3, 1993; Annexure A/4 supra the respondents perhaps would not have relieved the applicant from New Kangra and might have allowed him to continue at New Kangra. Be that as it may the applicants transfer to Kangra, instead of Salol, had assumed the status of regular transfer and it no longer remained a temporary adjustment" and the applicant is entitled to stay at New Kangra for his normal tenure. Even otherwise it will be unjust, unfair and unequitable if the applicant is now directed to proceed to Salol from New Kangra without completing his normal tenure at Kangra. 8. In the above premise this application deserves to be allowed and allowing the same we quash order, Annexure A/3 dated July 8, 1993 and the respondents are directed to permit the applicant to continue at New Kangra for his full normal tenure. The parties will, however, bear their own costs, Application allowed.