V. Dutta Gyani, C. J. (Acting)-- This writ appeal filed on 27th May, 1997 arises out of judgment and order dated 15.5.97 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.3372 of 1996 and Civil Rule No.4488 of 1996. A common judgment was delivered in both this writ petitions. The subject matter of challenge is the transfer orders passed in respect of the writ petitioners. Aggrieved by the judgment, the writ petitioner in Civil Rule No.3372 of 1996 has come up in appeal. It is having fire for almost a year. The impugned orders of transfer were passed on 4.7.96. 2. The. law on the question of transfer is well settled by now by series of decisions of the Apex Court and the scope of interference of the writ Court is also well defined. 3. Transfer is an incident of service. No Govt. servant of any department claim a vested right to remain at any particular place unless a transfer order is shown to be in contravention of any statutory rule or palpably malafide. The Courts ordinarily do not interfere with orders of transfer. In the instant case learned counsel appearing for the appellant highlighted the malafide or at any rate extraneous consideration not germane to exigency of public service and in support of his submissions placed before us a note sheet which goes to show that the transfer was at the behest of a Minister so to accommodate the respondent No.7 herein at a particular place. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 countered this submission by saving that at certain point of time the appellant was also the beneficiary of such benevolence on the part of the powers that be, the grievance that he today is making is therefore wholly unjustifiable. He also invited our attention to paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. We do not propose to allow the dirty linen to be washed in this Court. Suffice it to say that such uncalled for interference in routine matters of transfer must always be eschewed and if there be such interference, it must be cured at the appropriate level. He also invited our attention to paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. We do not propose to allow the dirty linen to be washed in this Court. Suffice it to say that such uncalled for interference in routine matters of transfer must always be eschewed and if there be such interference, it must be cured at the appropriate level. Transfer has to be in public interest, it cannot be made on extraneous consideration to seek or achieve oblique purpose, which in the instant case is writ large and further reinforced by the photostate copy of the note sheet as placed for our perusal by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Considering the long lapse of time, ordinarily a person transferred remains at the station for a period of 3 years unless otherwise warranted by some other justifiable reasons or grounds, he should not be disturbed. The record shows that the appellant had been placed at the present place for almost four years by now but the power to transfer can only be exercised in public interest and the administrative authority conferred with such power must act in a just fair and reasonable manner. It is not an absolute power conferred for self-serving ends or to please the higher ups. If the exigency of service so demands, the public servants are always liable to be transferred, provided of course the action taken is informed with justness and fairness. Even while striking down and impugned order of transfer, Annexure 1 of the appeal, we leave it to the authority, if the exigencies of public service so demands, to pass any fresh order. The impugned order is quashed and the appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.