D. K. SETH, J. The petitioner was transferred by an order dated 2-7-1997 from Etawah to Firozabad while one Shri Ranvir Singh Chauhan was transferred from Firozabad to Etawah. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Umesh Chandra Mishra contends that the petitioners wife is posted in the same department at Etawah. In violation of paragraph 8 (2) of the Government Order dated 15-4-1997 the petitioner was transferred while the wife is still posted at Etawah. He has also contended that petitioners children are admitted in the local school and that his transfer is mid-session one. He also contends that there are many persons who were posted at Etawah for more than 20 years had not been transferred whereas the petitioner had worked only 19 years at Etawah. He further contends that the petitioner has been transferred on account of letter con tained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition addressed by one Member of Legislative Assembly. 3. Mr. A. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the caveator Shri Ranvir Singh Chauhan submits that the writ petition is not maintainable because the said Shri Ranvir Singh Chauhan has not been made party to the proceeding inasmuch as any order passed in the writ petition will affect the right of the said Shri Ranvir Singh Chauhan who has already joined the post at Etawah pursuant to the said transfer order. He also opposes the contention of Mr. U. C. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the ground the petitioner cannot claim any right on the ground of education of children. In asmuch as the said question was considered by this court and held against the petitioner in the ear lier writ petition No. nil of 1997 since been disposed of by an order dated 25-7-1997. The said order is Annexure-6 to the writ petition in which the question of mid-ses sion transfer was negatived. However, on other questions, the petitioner was given liberty to make a representation to respondent No. 2 who was directed to dis pose of the same within three weeks. Ac cordingly, the representation of the petitioner has been considered which is Annexure-A to the writ petition. Mr. Tiwari supports the said order while Mr. Mishra opposes the same on the ground that he has not touched the points raised in the representation itself. 4. Ac cordingly, the representation of the petitioner has been considered which is Annexure-A to the writ petition. Mr. Tiwari supports the said order while Mr. Mishra opposes the same on the ground that he has not touched the points raised in the representation itself. 4. So far as the ground that the order of transfer was issued pursuant to a letter addressed by the Member of Legislative Assembly contained in Annexure- 9 to the petition is concerned it does not appear from the representation dated 4-8-1997, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ peti tion, that he had ever made such a ground in the said representation. Then again, the copy of the letter which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition does not bear any date. Thus the ground of the petitioner that the impugned transfer was passed on the basis of alleged letter contained in Annexure-9 cannot be looked into as it has been taken for the first time in the writ petition and has not been taken by him in the earlier petition and also in his representation. 5. So far as the question of transfer of the petitioner alone while his wife has been left out is concerned, I am not in clined to interfere with the same on the ground that the petitioner was posted in the same place for about 18 years. The said Government policy is only a guideline and does not have any statutory or binding force. If on an administration exigency a person is to be transferred it is open to the administration to transfer such person. 6. So far as the question that persons who have been posted for more than 20-30 years in the same place have not been transferred is concerned the same does not provide any ground of discrimination as has been sought to be urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Inasmuch as if some persons have been left out and have not been transferred, it would be for the authority to consider the same but this court cannot enter into such question nor can invoke Article 14 of the Constitution on that ground. 7. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the caveator has relied upon a decision in the case of Union of India and others v. S. L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 in support of his decision. 8. In the said case, in paragraph Nos. 7. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the caveator has relied upon a decision in the case of Union of India and others v. S. L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 in support of his decision. 8. In the said case, in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "an order of transfer is an incident of Government Service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government ser vant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any man ner required by proper authority. " Fundamen tal Rule 15 says that "the President" may transfer a Government Servant from one post to another. That the respondent is liable to transfer any where in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that the order of his is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order-though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respon dent attributed "mischief to his immediate su perior who had nothing to do with the transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a set-back sometime ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in viola tion 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. The guidelines say that as far as possible, hus band and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. " 9. The guidelines say that as far as possible, hus band and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. " 9. In view of the ratio decided in the said case as has been held that the said guideline does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforce able right through writ jurisdiction with regard to the posting of husband and wife at the same place, therefore, the conten tion of Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted particularly in view of the facts and cir cumstances of the case. 10. For all these reasons, I am not able to pursuade myself to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. How ever, it would be open to the wife of the petitioner to make a representation if she is so advised. 11. There will, however, be no order as to cost. 12. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges at the earliest. Petition dismissed. .