Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Plaintiff in O.S. 4 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar is the revision petitioner. She is employed in Seventh Day Adventist School. Virudhunagar as a teacher. She was transferred to another institution, without affecting her service conditions, under the same management. The same is challenged in the suit. In the suit she wants declaration that the transfer order dated 7-12-1998 is not valid and the same should not be implemented and she wanted a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants not to implement the same. An ex parte order of injunction was granted, but after hearing respondent, trial Court vacated the same. Petitioner filed C.M.A. 11 of 1999 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Virudhunagar. Before the lower appellate Court also an ad interim injunction was granted, but subsequently, vacated though CMA is still kept pending. Against the dismissal of interim order petitioner has come to this Court with this revision petition. Since caveat was entered by respondents, I heard the revision itself at the admission stage. After hearing counsel on both sides I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The right to transfer of an employee is not disputed. Petitioner is holding transferable post, is also not a matter in dispute. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she should not have been transferred in the middle of the year and also for the reason that since her husband is also employed in the same place, she must also be retained in service in the same school. According to petitioner, even as per the rules of the school, husband and wife should be allowed to continue in the same station. It is violating this rule transfer has been effected.As against the said contention, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the transfer has already taken place and petitioner was also relieved from duty but since she has refused to join in the transferred post, disciplinary action is also pending against her. It is further contended that there is no rule that transfer shall not take effect during the middle of the year and husband and wife should be placed in the same station. Guidelines issued by the Government will not apply so far as schools under the control of respondents are concerned, which are minority institutions. It is further contended that there is no rule that transfer shall not take effect during the middle of the year and husband and wife should be placed in the same station. Guidelines issued by the Government will not apply so far as schools under the control of respondents are concerned, which are minority institutions. In (Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta) a similar question came for consideration. There the complainant was an employee of a Nationalised Bank. Government had issued guidelines that as far as possible, postings of husband and wife should be in the same station even if their employers are different. The guidelines issued by the Government also made applicable to Public Sector Undertakings, i.e. Nationalised Banks also. The question before the Honourable Supreme Court was whether transfer violating those guidelines could be impeached in a Court of law. Their Lordships have held that even though there are certain guidelines that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right, if the Department do not consider it feasible. If the administrative exigency requires the posting to a different place, nothing prevents the management from effecting transfer. In this case, even that rule is not made applicable to management. Counsel for petitioner only relies on the guidelines of Government, which is not applicable to minority institutions. In (Union of India v. S. L. Abbas), their Lordships have held that an order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Who should be transferred and where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Their Lordships further went on and said that 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. Their Lordships also said that even if there is any guideline that husband and wife should be posted in the same place, that guideline does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right, and instructions even if there is any are only guidelines and nothing more. Their Lordships further went on and said that at the time of transfer if there are certain guidelines, the authorities will consider the same. Their Lordships further went on and said that at the time of transfer if there are certain guidelines, the authorities will consider the same. As I said, in this case, there are no prohibition or guideline prohibiting transfer from one place to another nor there is guideline that husband and wife should be placed in one and the same place. In (N. K. Singh v. Union of India), their Lordships said that challenge in Courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by Courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. Of course that was a case of Government Servant. In that case also Lordships have said that transfer should be impeached in a Court of law only if the order is passed violating the statutory provision or it is made with mala fides. Here, petitioner has no case that her service condition is affected in any way. A similar view was taken in the decision reported in (Union of India v. Ganesh Dass Singh). Taking into consideration these legal position. I do not think that an order of transfer could be challenged in a Court of law and even if could be challenged, the ground of interference are very much limited. Petitioner has no case that transfer order was made with mala fides. She complains only of some guidelines issued by Government, which is not applicable to respondent institution. Learned counsels for petitioner submitted the transfer has been effected in the middle of the year and being educational institution, transfers during middle of the year is not encouraged. It is true that in educational institutions, transfer in the middle of the year are as far as possible avoided. Such a policy is taken for the benefit of students and not for the staff. It is students who are affected if in the middle of the year transfer of a teacher is made. In this case, immediately after petitioner has been transferred, another person has been substituted in her place and petitioner has no case that students are affected by her transfer.Trial Court as well as lower appellate Court are justified in holding that petitioner has no prima facie case for getting an order of injunction. In this case, immediately after petitioner has been transferred, another person has been substituted in her place and petitioner has no case that students are affected by her transfer.Trial Court as well as lower appellate Court are justified in holding that petitioner has no prima facie case for getting an order of injunction. Balance of convenience is also in favour of respondent and there was no argument by learned counsel for petitioner that by effecting transfer, petitioner is put to irreparable injury. In the result, the revision petition is without merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 20950 if 1999 is also dismissed.