Judgment S.K.Homchaudhuri, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.1.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2948 of 1994 (R). 2. While the appellant and respondent No. 2 were working as the Motor Vehicle Inspector (In short M.V.I.) by the Government notification dated 18.10.94, respondent No. 2 was transferred from Jamshedpur to Chaibasa and the appellant was transferred from Ranchi to Jamshedpur and the incumbent who was working as M.V.I. at Chaibasa was transferred to Ranchi, Respondent No. 2 impugned the notification dated 18.10.94 in C.W.J.C. No. 2948 of 1994 (R) in this Court, contending that he was transferred from Jamshedpur only after working there for about one year four months in violation of the policy decision of the Government for extraneous reason at the behest of respondent No. 6, who was the Member of Parliament. 3. C.W.J.C. No. 2948 of 1994 (R) was filedon 8.11.94. By the order dated 17.11.94 notice was issued to the respondents and also an interim order was passed in the petition directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned notification dated 18.10.94 so far as it related to respondent No. 2 (the writ petitioner) and the Appellant (respondent No. 5 to the writ petition) in the meantime. The Appellant (respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) filed an application on 28.11.94 with the prayer to vacate the interim order passed on 17.11.94 contending that in pursuant to the notification dated 18.10.94 he had reported for duty on 4.11.94 after being relieved from the post of M.V.I. at Ranchi. But respondent No. 2 (the writ petitioner) not having handed over charge the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur by order dated 7.11.94 directed respondent No. 2 (the writ petitioner) to hand over charge forthwith and to join his duty at Chaibasa. But in spite of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2 (the writ petitioner) did not hand over charge and thereafter as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner the Appellant assumed charge of M.V.I. at Jamshedpur on 7.11.94 and respondent No. 2 (the writ petitioner) was relieved from the post of M.V.I. Jamshedpur on that date. By suppressing aforesaid fact in the writ petition, interim order dated 17.11.94 was obtained. 4. By suppressing aforesaid fact in the writ petition, interim order dated 17.11.94 was obtained. 4. It appears that following orders were passed in the writ petition thereafter before disposal of the writ petition by order dated 3.1.1995: 30.11.94 Put up this case on 19.12.94, when the main matter is to be heard for admission on that date. 19.12.94 The date of hearing in admission matter is extended till 15.1.1995 awaiting service report on respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 21.12.94 Mr. Kalyan Roy and Mr. Sanjay Pipriwal have appeared on behalf of respondents 5 & 6 respectively. They pray that as both the respondents have appeared, me order dated 19.12.94 by reason of which the date of hearing in admission matter of this case has been extended to 5.1.95, be modified. In such view of the matter the order dated 19.12.94 is modified to the extent that this case will be listed for admission day after tomorrow, as jointly prayed for before an appropriate Bench within first ten cases. 5. The writ petition was posted for admission on 3.1.95 and on that date the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties disposed of the writ petition on merit-operative part of which is as follows: In the result this writ application is allowed and the impugned notifications Nos. 8108 and 8110 dated 18.10.94 so far the same relates to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are quashed. So far respondent No. 5 is concerned, he may move the State Govt. for his posting in a suitable place. The State Govt. is directed to take into consideration the fact that respondent No. 5 is in South Bihar Region for the last 12 years and, as such, proper care should be taken while passing transfer order regarding respondent No. 5 Respondent No. 5 will be at liberty to file a representation for his salary etc. which will be disposed of by the competent authority as early as possible. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 3.1.95, passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and the learned Government Advocate. 8. which will be disposed of by the competent authority as early as possible. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 3.1.95, passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and the learned Government Advocate. 8. In assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Appellant advanced the following submissions: (i) writ petition ought to have been dismissed for suppression of material facts that before filing of the writ petition the impugned notification dated 18.10.94 had already been given effect to inasmuch as the Appellant assumed charge on 7.11.94 as per order of the Deputy Commissioner after being relieved from Ranchi and respondent No. 2 (the writ petitioner) also stood relieved on 7.11.94. (ii) The Notification dated 18.10.94 was passed for administrative reason and the order not being malafide nor passed in violation of statutory provisions, no interference was warranted inasmuch as there is no scope of judicial review of the notification dated 18.10.94 transferring respondent No. 2 to Chaibasa and the Appellant from Ranchi to Jamshedpur. (iii) It is apparent from the order sheet of C.W.J.C. No. 2948 of 1994 (R) that respondents hardly got time to file counter-affidavit and the writ petition was disposed of on the date of admission before any counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent. (iv) There occurred error of law in passing the impugned order purporting to set aside the Notification dated 18.10.94 holding that the same was issued in violation of the policy decision of the State Government inasmuch as policy decision on which respondent No. 2 placed reliance is still awaiting approval of the Chief Minister and has not yet been given effect to, and that apart even if there was policy decision providing guidelines in the matter of transfer of the employees, that did not confer any vested right on the employee to challenge the order of transfer. (v) The affidavit-filed on behalf of the State in this appeal would clearly establish that the said policy decision has not yet been approved by the State Government and given effect to. (v) The affidavit-filed on behalf of the State in this appeal would clearly establish that the said policy decision has not yet been approved by the State Government and given effect to. Moreover, in the counter-affidavit, the State Government, denied the contention of respondent No. 2 that he was transferred at the behest of the M.P. It is stated in the affidavit that as per the decision of the Establishment Committee headed by the Chief Minister notification dated 18.10.94 was issued for administrative reason. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance amongst others on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India V/s. S.L. Abbas reported in 1994 S.C.C. (L.& S.) 230. In that case, the Apex Court has held that an order of transfer is an incident of Government Service and who should be transferred and where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides, or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfers, the authority, no doubt must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. The same guideline, however, does not confer upon the Government-employee a legally enforceable right. 9. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 on the other hand submitted that the appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as the impugned order has already been given effect to and the Appellant has been transferred to Patna and that the learned Single Judge on perusal of materials found that the transfer order was passed in violation of the Government policy decision and for extraneous reason. As such no interference is warranted. 10. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 and perused the materials on record. It is well-settled by a catena of decision of the Apex Court that when transfer is a condition of service of the employee unless the order is mala fide or is made in violation of the provisions of statutory Rules, administrative order transferring an employee cannot be subjected to judicial review and the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with the order. The authority transferring an employee is not obliged to justify the order by adducing reason therefore. The authority transferring an employee is not obliged to justify the order by adducing reason therefore. It is also well settled by the decision of the Apex Court that the guideline issued by the Government as regards the transfer of the employee cannot confer legal right on the employee and transfer order cannot be interfered with on the allegation of violation of the said guidelines. On perusal of the order sheet of C.W.J.C. No. 2498 of 1994 (R) I find that respondents could not get sufficient time to file counter-affidavit before passing of the impugned order. As such I have considered the contentions made in the affidavits, counter-affidavits and rejoinder filed in the appeal. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 (State of Bihar) it is stated on oath that the policy decision, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, has not yet been given effect to inasmuch as the Establishment Committee on 12.8.94 amongst other placed the policy decision for approval before the Government, namely, (Chief Minister) but no approval has yet been accorded. It has further been contended in the rejoinder that the impugned notification dated 18.10.94 transferring respondent No. 2 to Chaibasa and the appellant from Ranchi to Jamshedpur was passed for administrative reason and exigencies with the approval of the Chief Minister. In support thereof a xerox of the minutes of the Establishment Committee is annexed as Annexure-A to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the State. In the rejoinder respondent No. 1 denied the contention of respondent No. 2 (the writ petitioner) that the notification dated 18.10.94 transferring respondent No. 2 from Jamshedpur to Chaibasa was passed at the behest of local Member of Parliament. Statements made on behalf of the State in the rejoinder, have not been disputed by respondent No. 2. It is thus Apparent that by notification dated 18.10.94 Appellant and Respondent No. 2 were transferred for administrative reason and order transferring them was neither mala fide nor made in violation of provisions of statutory Rules. That being so, in view of the settled position of law, we are constrained to hold that the impugned order dated 3.1.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 3.1.95 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2948 of 1994 (R) is set aside. That being so, in view of the settled position of law, we are constrained to hold that the impugned order dated 3.1.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 3.1.95 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2948 of 1994 (R) is set aside. I make no order as to costs. 12. In the course of hearing learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since his release from the post of M. V.I. at Ranchi, the appellant has not been paid any salary although in obedience to the Notification dated 18.10.94, he reported for duty on 4.11.94 and assumed charge of M.V.I. at Jamshedpur on 7.11.94. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 2 in addition to the post of M.V.I. at Jamshedpur has also been discharging the duties and responsibilities of M.V.I. at Chaibasa. If that be so, the appellant cannot suffer because of the orders passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2948 of 1994 (R), for no fault of him. The Transport Commissioner, Bihar shall pass appropriate order ensuring payment of pay and allowances to the appellant on and from the date of his release from the post of M.V.I. at Ranchi to which he is lawfully entitled in the light of this judgment.