S. RAFAT ALAM, J. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has come for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-2-1996, contained in Annexure 23 to the writ petition, whereby her representation against the order of transfer has been rejected by the respondent No. 1, viz. the Director of Education (Higher Education), U. P. , Allahabad. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground, inter alia, that the same is in violation of the Government policy to post husband and wife together and also contrary to the earlier direction/order of this Court dated 11-11-1995 Annexure-21 ). 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Lecturer (Music) and posted in Government Post Graduate College, Rampur since 1982. Her husband, who is the Project Officer in Non-Formal Education has also been posted at Rampur, in view of the Government policy to keep husband and wife posted at one place. By officer order dated 4-6-1994 several teachers of different subjects were transferred including the petition who has been transferred from Rampur to Ranikhet. 3. The petitioner unwilling to join the place of transfer filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was disposed of by order dated 1-4-1994 with the direction to the concerned authorities to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioners husband (Annex ure 5 ). Consequently, the appropriate authority by order dated 22-4-1994 rejected the representation on the ground that one post out of the two sanction posts of Lecturer (Music) is vacant in the Government College, Ranikhet on account of which the students were suffering. Keeping this view the petitioner has been transferred in public interest so that the students may not suffer. The petitioner reluctant to join at Ranikhet, again approached this Court by filing another writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 226900 of 1995, with a further new ground that the Honble Chancellor has issued direction for giving suitable posting to the petitioner at a place where husband is posted, but the same is not being considered by the con cerned authority inspite of the direction of the Chancellor. 4. 4. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment/order dated 21-8-1995 (Annexure 14) disposed of the petition with the following directions : "that being the factual position, we direct that the aforesaid repre sentations filed by the petitioner shall be decided by the respon dent No. 2 within two months from the date of production of a certified copy before him in the light of the directions, issued by the Chancellor of the University and relevant Government orders operating in the field. " 5. In compliance to the aforesaid directions of this Court, her repre sentation was considered on merit by the Director of Education (Higher Education) U. P. , Allahabad who rejected the same by his order dated 26-9-1995 holding that the alleged letter dated 17-5-1995 of the Honble Chancellor has not been received in the office. It has further been held that the petitioner was relieved on 20-0-1994 to enable her to submit her joining at the transferred place, i. e. , Ranikhet but inspite of the relieving order and direction dated 22-7-1994 to submit her joining report immediately, she did not join the post. 6. It appears that the petitioner again challengened the order of rejection of her representation dated 26-5-1995 in this Court by filing writ petition No. 31810 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment/ order dated 11-11-1995 finally disposed of the writ petition with the direc tion to decide her representation afresh within 15 days in the light of the observations made in the judgment. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, has Honble Court took note of different Government orders/ guidelines/policy with regard to the policy to post husband and wife at the same station because on account of their postings to different places, husband wife suffer difficulties, therefore, as far as possible they should be kept at one place. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 after considering the repre sentation of the petitioner afresh decided and disposed or the same by a reasoned order dated 13-2-1996 which has been impugned in this petition. 7. Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sub mitted that respondent No, 1 while disposing of the representation of the petitioner did not appreciate nor consider the hardship which the family of the petitioner would face if the order of transfer is implemented. 7. Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sub mitted that respondent No, 1 while disposing of the representation of the petitioner did not appreciate nor consider the hardship which the family of the petitioner would face if the order of transfer is implemented. He further contended that the order transferring the petitioner from Rampur to Ranikhet is in the teeth of the Governments policy to keep husband and wife together at one place. He, however, did not dispute that the petitioner is holding a transferable post and as per service condition can be transferr ed from one place to another. 8. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was posted as Lecturer (Music) in Government Post Graduate College, Rampur since 1982. It is also evident from the perusal of the order of transfer dated 4-6-1994 that the same has been made on account of administrative exigencies and in public interest. 9. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order that respon dent No. 1 considered the grievance of the petitioner and also the hardship which may be caused to the family of the petitioner on account of transfer and thereafter in the light of the observations made in the judgment of this Court dated 11-11-1995 (Annexure 21) passed a reasoned order in Hindi rejecting her representation on the following grounds, English translation of which is as under : (1) No post of Lecturer (Music) is available in the Government Post Graduate College Rampur since Smt. Usha Singhal has already joined on 23rd July, 1994. (2) As per staff statement two posts in Music department of the Government Degree College, Ranikhet are sanctioned out of which one post is still vacant against which the petitioner has been posted. (. 3) The petitioner has been transferred in view of the Government policy on transfer and posting not to keep an employee remain posted at one place for more than 12 years, since the petitioner was there from 8-2-1982 and therefore, she was transferred under the aforesaid guidelines providing transfer and posting. (. 3) The petitioner has been transferred in view of the Government policy on transfer and posting not to keep an employee remain posted at one place for more than 12 years, since the petitioner was there from 8-2-1982 and therefore, she was transferred under the aforesaid guidelines providing transfer and posting. (4) Her transfer has not been made to cause hardship to the family but on account of policy laid down by the Government, (5) The petitioner was allowed to continue for quite a long period at Rampur looking to the hardship of the family but now in the absence of vacant post it is not possible to keep her at Rampur. (6) No post of Lecturer of Music either at Rampur or its adjoining area is vacant and further in the mid of Session other Lecturers cannot be disturbed. (7) In the faculty of Music the posts of Lecturer of Music (Sitar) is available at few places and at present none of them is vacant. Respondent No. 1 on the aforesaid reasons held that it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner. He, however, observed that at the time of annual transfer, If she makes a representation in this regard, the same shall be duly considered. 10. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention that the Director while disposing of the representation overlooked the Govern ment policy regarding transfer and posting and also did not keep in mind the observations made by this Court in its judgment dated 11-11-1995. After a careful reading of the impugned order, we are of the view that the respon dent/director has fully considered the grievance of the petitioner and on account of non-availability of post and in view of the Government order on transfer and posting not to keep a person remain posted at one place for more than 12 years, it was not possible to post the petitioner at Rampur or within its adjoining area. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then drew our attention to the communication dated 17-5-1995 and 29-9-1995, contained in Annexures 9 and 17 respectively to the petition, and submitted that inspite of the trans fer being cancelled by the Chancellor, the petitioner being compelled to join at the place of transfer. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then drew our attention to the communication dated 17-5-1995 and 29-9-1995, contained in Annexures 9 and 17 respectively to the petition, and submitted that inspite of the trans fer being cancelled by the Chancellor, the petitioner being compelled to join at the place of transfer. We have perused the aforesaid communica tions which was issued by Sri R. K. Saksena, Officer on special duty to his Excellency the Governor, who is also the Chancellor of the University, whereby the request of one Begum Noor Bano of Rainpur to cancel the transfer of petitioner and to allow hoc to continue at Rampur or at Haldwani has simply been forwarded to respondent No. 1. The Director was further asked to intimate the action taken on the request of Begum Noor Bauo. The two letters referred above do not indicate that the Chancel lor has been pleased to cancel the order transferring the petitioner from Rampur to Ranikhet, rather the Director was asked to communicate as to what action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner dated 22-9- 1995 by communication dated 29-9-1995 has simply been forwarded fordoing the needful in the matter. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention advanced on behalf the petitioner that the Chancellor has pleased to cancel the order of transfer, rather by the aforesaid two communications the petitioners representa tion and the request of Begum Noor Bano of Rampur for cancelling the transfer of the petitioner was simply forwarded to the Director for passing the necessary order in the matter. 12. It is true that husband and wife may be posted at one place as far as possible, so that the family may not suffer and the authorities while trans ferring an employee may keep in mind such hardship or policy decision. 12. It is true that husband and wife may be posted at one place as far as possible, so that the family may not suffer and the authorities while trans ferring an employee may keep in mind such hardship or policy decision. But in a case where the authorities after having considered the hardship of an employee finds it difficult to post them at one place, either on account of non-availability of the post or on account of administrative exigencies or in public interest, then in that case personal hardship or individual interests have to give way to public interest which is of paramount consideration and therefore, we are of the view that this Court in such a situation cannot issue a writ directing the respondents to post both husband and wife at one place at the cost of administrative exigencies and public interest. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. S. L. Abbas reported in 1993 (4) SCC page 357 has held that the guidelines to keep husband and wife posted at the same place does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right and it has no statutory force. The authorities are only required to keep in mind those guidelines and consider the same, having regard to the administrative exigencies. The Apex Court has further he[d that who would be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide and the same cannot be interfered with, even if it is made in violation of any statutory guidelines except in a case where the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or the same is in violation of statutory provisions. 14. It is a well settled law that the transfer is an incident of service and an employee holding transferable post can be transferred from one place to another. As noticed above, it is not disputed that the petition is holding a transferable post and the petitioner is posted in the present institution for more than 12 years. There is no assertion in the writ petition nor it has been argued that the impugned order of transfer was passed on account of any malice or the same is contrary to the statutory provisions and thus we do not find any reasonable basis to interfere with the order of transfer! There is no assertion in the writ petition nor it has been argued that the impugned order of transfer was passed on account of any malice or the same is contrary to the statutory provisions and thus we do not find any reasonable basis to interfere with the order of transfer! We also do not find any error in the impugned or rejecting the representa tion of the petitioner requiring any interference under writ jurisdiction of this Court. 15. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed but without costs. Petition dismissed. .