JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Civil Appellate Tribunal dated 13.8.98, contained in Annexure. 7 to this petition, by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected against the impugned transfer order dated 24.9.97, contained in Annexure. 4 to the petition, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Barmer to Jalore district. 2. Petitioner is working in the Medical & Health Department of the State of Rajasthan. He was transferred from Barmer district to Jalore district by the impugned transfer order contained in Annexure. 4 to this petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he had challenged the order by filing Appeal No. 1217/1997 before the Appellate Tribunal, which has been rejected by the judgment and order dated 13.8.98. Hence this petition. 3. The main grievance raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal was that the wife of the petitioner was in service and as per the Transfer Policy, both the spouses, if in Government service, are required to be posted at the same place and, therefore, the impugned transfer order had been passed in flagrant violation of the Transfer Policy, and secondly, the transfer would adversely affect the education of the school-going children of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal considered the averments and rejected the appeal of the petitioner holding that the transfer order was passed in administrative exigency. 4. In the writ petition, certain allegations of malafide had been made against Shri Ganga Ram Choudhary, Revenue Minister of Rajasthan. However, he was not a party before the learned Tribunal nor any allegation had been made against him in the appeal. First time, in the writ petition, the allegation of malafide has been made and, now, an application has been filed to implead Shri Ganga Ram Choudhary, the Revenue Minister, as a respondent. 5. It is settled law that petitioner cannot take a new plea which requires investigation of facts first time in the writ petition. In Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, 1993(4) SCC 10 , the Apex Court has observed as under- "A point not raised before the Tribunal or Administrative authority may not be allowed to be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction, more so when the interference in the writ jurisdiction which is equitable and discretionary, is not, of course, a must." 6. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the cases of St. Arunachalam Pillai v. Southern Roadways Ltd. & another, AIR 1960 SC 1191 , A.M. Allison v. State of Assam, AIR 1957 SC 227 , Cantonment Board, Ambala v. Pyarelal, AIR 1966 SC 108 , State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, AIR 1992 SC 932 , Bhanwarlal v. T.K.A. Abdul Karim, AIR 1992 SC 2166 , and Rajeshwari Amma v. Joseph, AIR 1995 SC 719 . 7. Thus, in view of the above, the application for impleadment is rejected. 8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Court can interfere with the impugned transfer order only if the transfer order is in contravention of the statutory provisions or had been passed on mala fide reasons. The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions. It is entirely upto the competent authority to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. (Vide Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 , Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 , Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1991 SC 1605 , Chief Manager (Tel.) N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, AIR 1995 SC 813 , State of U.P. v. Dr. R.N. Prasad, 1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 151 , Union of India and others v. Ganesh Dan Singh, 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 214 , N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others, 1994(6) SCC 98 , and Abani Kante Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 169 ). 9. An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work on a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and Court cannot interfere with a transfer order/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency. In Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atma Ram Sugomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under- "Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. In Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atma Ram Sugomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under- "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 has legal right for being posted at any particular 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." 10. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, AIR 1995 SC 813 and Union of India v. H.N. Kirtania, AIR 1989 SC 1774 . 11. Further it has been submitted by Mr. Hedau that the transfer order of petitioner has been passed in flagrant violation of the Transfer Policy declared by the State. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the Government instructions on transfer are mere guidelines without any statutory force and the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with the order of transfer unless the said order is alleged to have been passed by malice or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions. Similarly view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, AIR 1992 SC 519 , has observed as under- "There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. Desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice. Even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with administrative needs. In case of All India Services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of others posting. Even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with administrative needs. In case of All India Services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of others posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship, if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case, the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion and any appointment in the All India Service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incident of All India Service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places.......... No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and claim of other employees." (Emphasis added). 12. Thus, it is clear that the transfer policy does not create any legal right in favour of the petitioner. It is settled law that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing the statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the petitioner that there is a breach of the statutory duty on the part of the respondents. Therefore, there must be judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. Therefore, there must be judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which the writ jurisdiction can be resorted to. The Court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by public bodies through its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of the said right is the condition precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction. ( State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai, AIR 1989 SC 49 , State of Kerala v. Smt. A. Laxmi Kutty, AIR 1987 SC 331 , Mani Subrat Jain and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276 , and Calcutta Gas Company (Propriety Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1962 SC 1044 ). 13. In Shilpi Bose's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that order of transfer/posting "issued by the competent authority did not violate any of her legal right." The employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right for his posting at a particular place. The same view has been taken by this Court in Jagdish Chandra Ojha v. State of Rajasthan, 1997(3) RLW 2091 and by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Archana Patni v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1998(2) WLC 1 . 14. However, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Kourav, AIR 1995 SC 1056 , it has been held by the Apex Court that it is not permissible for the writ Court or Tribunal to go into the relative hardship of an employee which may be caused by his transfer/posting. It is for the competent authority/employer to consider the facts of a given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration. If the employee makes a representation before the Competent Authority against the impugned transfer order ventilating all his grievances, the employer is under a solemn duty to consider his representation and the said authority cannot brush-aside the grievances of the employee being personal in nature. 15. As the transfer order had been passed long-time ago and petitioner's claim has been rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, no purpose would be served even if the petitioner makes a representation, now. 16. Thus, in view of the above, I find no force in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******