JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 7.5.2000 by which the petitioner stood transferred from Bhilwara to Jahajpur and for quashing the order of the respondents dated 24.11.2000 (Annex. 7) by which her representation against the said transfer order in pursuance of the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 18.7.2000 has been rejected. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was serving as a Medical Officer and had been posted at Bhilwara. Her husband is also in the E.S.I. Hospital, Bhilwara who is also a Medical Officer. The petitioner's service stood transferred to Jahajpur vide impugned order dated 17.5.2001. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred the appeal No. 1122/2000 before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which vide order dated 11.7.2000, directed the petitioner to make a representation before the competent authority and directed the competent authority to decide the same. The authority has decided the representation vide order dated 24.11.2000. Hence, this petition. 3. Shri Manish Sisodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised large number of issues particularly the personal inconveniences of the petitioner i.e. petitioner's husband is posted in the E.S.I. Hospital, Bhilwara. She had two children of younger age of 16 and 6 years. Her father-in-law is of 70 years and nobody is to look after to him. The transfer order is against the transfer policy framed by the State Government and thus liable to be quashed. 4. Shri Arun Bhansali learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the said contentions submitting that all the personal inconveniences of the petitioner had been considered by the competent authority and the respondents required her services at Jahajpur. The personal inconveniences cannot be considered by this Court nor this Court can sit in appeal against the order passed by the competent authority while considering the representation of the petitioner. 5. 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 malafide 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. 5. 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 malafide 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 Supp. (2) SCC 151 ; Union of India & . Ors. v. Ganesh Dan Singh, 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 214 ; N.K. Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 1994(6) SCC 98 ; and Abani Kante Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 169) . 6. 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. Atmaram Sungomal 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 not choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." 7. 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 . 8. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." 7. 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 . 8. In Union of India v. H.N. Kritania, AIR 1989 SC 1774 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "Transfer of a public servant made on administration grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of malafide." 9. Thus, it is clear that Court can interfere with the transfer order only on the grounds of malafides or if the order is found to be in violation of statutory Rules. None of such ground exists in this case. Moreso, if the allegations of malafides are to be alleged, it becomes the duty of the employee to implead the persons (s) against whom the allegations are made. (Vide J.M. Banawalikar v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi & ors., AIR 1996 SC 326 ; State of Bihar & ors. v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 222 ; I.K. Mishra v. Union of India & ors., (1997) 6 SCC 228 ; and All India State Bank Officers Federation & ors. v. Union of India & ors., JT 1996 (8) SC 550) . 10. In the instant case, no statutory provision has been brought to the notice of the Court which has been violated nor any allegation of malafide against any statutory authority had been alleged nor any person has been impleaded as party respondent by name. Thus, there is no force in the contention raised by Shri Sisodia on these counts. 11. Further it has been contended that the transfer order of petitioner is 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, the Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra), has observed as under : "There can 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 other's 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 alongwith 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. 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. 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. (Vide State of Kerala v. K.G. Mahjadavan Pillai, AIR 1989 SC 49 ; State of Kerala v. Smt. A. Lakshmikutty, AIR 1987 SC 331 ; Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276 ; and Calcutta Gas Company (Propriety Ltd.) v. State of West Bengal & ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044 ) . 13. In Rajender Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1996 SC 2736 , it has been held that even violation of each and every provision of law does not furnish a ground for the Writ Court to interfere and if it is shown that substantial compliance of law has been made and unless it is shown that violation of law has caused substantial prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, no interference is called for. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 469 . As transfer policy does not create any legal right, non-adherence to the same cannot be a ground for interference nor it can be enforced through Court of law. 14. In Shilpi Bose (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. 14. In Shilpi Bose (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 (supra). 15. 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. Therefore, it is for the employer and not for the Court to consider the grievances of the employee, if the same are personal in nature. 16. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 18.7.2000, has directed the competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner which has been decided vide order dated 24.11.2000. This Court cannot sit in appeal against the said order of the authority and cannot interfere with the same. 17. In view of the above, there is no force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to the costs.Huge case- Law viewed. Writ Petition dismissed. *******