This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order of transfer dated 29.3.95, Annexure I to the writ application. That order is quoted below: xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 2. Earlier to it, the petitioner was transferred and he filed a representation and that was rejected. A notice of motion was issued on 8.5.95 and the transfer order was stayed. As against this a writ appeal was filed being Writ Appeal No.348 of 1995 and that was disposed of with an observation to hear the Civil Rule earlier. Accordingly, Rule was issued and this matter was taken up for hearing. The legality and validity of the transfer order was challenged on the following grounds: (i) That the request for posting on compassionate ground as provided by the own guidelines of the Army was not considered. (ii) Cases for posting on compassionate ground or for projects will be examined by a Board of Officers to be assembled every month at GREF Record and that was not done in the case of the petitioner. The representation dated 15.3.95 submitted by the petitioner was found to be genuine and proper by the Officer Commanding of 529 SC and Tika GREF and he forwarded the same to the Head Quarter ie Annexure D to the writ application. That is quoted below : "1. Reference GREF Records PO No.063/GP-IV/SKT/CA2 dated 21 February, 1995. 2. An application dated 15 March, 1995 received from GS-15206 5X SKT Prabhu Dayal Tiwari of this unit is sent herewith in triplicate alongwith its enclosures, duly recommended for your further necessary action please. 3. The case has been examined by the undersigned and found to be genuine." 3. That in spite of it, the case of the petitioner was not considered and it was rejected in the impugned order vide Annexure I. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed wherein it is stated that the petitioner has never served in a high altitude, it is the necessity of service that he must serve in an high altitude area. The policy for compassionate posting is subject to organisational and functional requirement and the overriding consideration is the management of the force by the administration. It is stated that the petitioner has completed two consecutive tenures in the East and as such he is not entitled to be retained. The policy for compassionate posting is subject to organisational and functional requirement and the overriding consideration is the management of the force by the administration. It is stated that the petitioner has completed two consecutive tenures in the East and as such he is not entitled to be retained. Retention in the Eastern Sector is monetarily attractive and as such the petitioner wants to be retained in the Eastern Sector. The recommendation given by the Officer Commanding is not binding on the Head Quarter and the Head Quarter in consideration of the entire materials on record rejected the representation. 5. I have heard Shri N. Dutta, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri SN Chetia, learned Advocate for the respondents. Shri Chetia in support of his contention relied the following decisions : (i) AIR 1989 SC1433 (Gujrat Electricity Board & another vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani) wherein he relied in paragraph 4. That is quoted below : "Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of Public Undertaking had legal right for being posted at any particular 1 place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." (ii) AIR 1993 SC 2444 (Union of India & others vs. SL Abbas) wherein he relied on paragraph 7. That is quoted below : "Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless me order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. Hie guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. Hie guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right." (iii) (1994) 6 SCC 98 (NK Singh vs. Union of India & others) where in paragraph 23 it has been pointed out as follows : "Transfer of a Government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by malafies or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scruitinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the Courts lack the necessary exprertise for personnel management of all Government Departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated." 6. Shri Dutta, doesnot quarrel with this proposition of law but what he submits is that the transfer of the petitioner in this particular case is an infraction of the professed norms or principle governing the transfer and he submits that this aspect of the matter can be scrutinised judicially as pointed out by the Supreme Court itself in the case of MK Singh (supra). Shri Dutta in support of his contention draws my attention to Annexure A guidelines dated 24.8.90 wherein he relied on 2 (c). Which is quoted below : "Compassionate and medical cases will be given a tenure restricted to two years. Compassionate posting will be given near home town, if feasible, once in the last 10 years of an employee's service or once in 15 years on extreme compassionate grounds." 7. He also draws my attention to clause 22 of the guidelines which is quoted below : "22. Compassionate posting will be given near home town, if feasible, once in the last 10 years of an employee's service or once in 15 years on extreme compassionate grounds." 7. He also draws my attention to clause 22 of the guidelines which is quoted below : "22. Cases of posting on compassionate grounds will be sent to Record Office as and when required alongwith the recommendation of CE on the format given in Appendix B attached. The idea of introducing the format is to see that the requirement of the individual is critically examined and accordingly the recommendations of TF Comdr/CE framed. All cases for posting on compassionate grounds/change of posting forwarded by CE (Projects) will be examined by a Board of Officers to be assembled every month at GREF Records as per Dte letter No.12519/PP/Corr. DGOR/EG2 dated 11th May, 1990. The following guidelines will be followed : (a) Compassionate posting in the initial ten years of service will be an exception; (b) If, however, it becomes unavoidable, only one posting on compassionate grounds in 15 years will be accepted. The tenure will be restricted to two years. In such a case after this posting, the individual may be posted to a hill. (c) One compassionate posting in the last ten years service of the individual will be considered and restricted to the years tenure. Any request for a posting during the last ten years will be considered a compassionate posting; and (d) While asking for a compassionate posting, only causes of compassion be asked for, stations to relieve that compassion will be decided by a Board of Officers at GREF Records." 8. He also draws my attention to clause 23. A part of which is relevant for this case is quoted below : "23. Posting on compassionate medical grounds is required based on the disease of dependents, certificate from specialist from the recognised hospitals should enclosed. Only one choice posting on medical grounds will be given in the entire service." 9. In the representation Annexure C submitted by the petitioner, it is seen that he wanted to change in posting on two grounds ie on the ground of-education of his children and illness of his wife. In support of the illness of his wife, he also produced the medical certificate and this representation was sent by the Officer Commanding. In the representation Annexure C submitted by the petitioner, it is seen that he wanted to change in posting on two grounds ie on the ground of-education of his children and illness of his wife. In support of the illness of his wife, he also produced the medical certificate and this representation was sent by the Officer Commanding. But Shri Dutta makes the grievances that in terms of clause 22 of the guidelines quoted above, it was never processed by the authority but it was sent back stating therein "returned herein on action with the following remarks." 10. In this connection, the law laid down by the Supreme Court is clear that the guidelines does not confer upon the employee a legally enforceable rights (see Union of India vs. Abbas (supra). The Supreme Court further pointed out in para 10 of the above judgment that when the order of transfer is questioned in a Court, the authority is not obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons of the transfer. The Supreme Court further pointed out that the Courts cannot quash the order of transfer if any of the instructions or guidelines are not followed. For not following the instruction or a guidelines, an order of transfer cannot be quashed as malafide. The Supreme Court pointed out that the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only when it is based on malafide or when it is made in violation of the statutory provisions. That is not the case here. 11. The other contention that the order of transfer was violative of the professed norms or principle governing the transfer cannot also be scrutinised in this particular case as the petitioner occupies a sensitive post in the Army and it is not for the Court to decide where and how the service of the petitioner can be best utilised. That must be left to the discretion of the authority. 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. The stay order passed earlier shall stand vacated.