N. K. JAIN, C. J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are filed against the order of the Karnataka administrative Tribunal dated 20-11-2001, whereby the Tribunal did not interfere with the impugned order of transfer dated 18-7-2001. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner, K. R. Mallesha Gowda, on promotion was transferred on 26-6-2001 from Channarayapatna to Hassan along with respondents 5 and 6, but later on, on the letter of an MLA, not of that constituency, the first petitioner was again transferred to holenarasipur on 18-7-2001 whereas, respondents 5 and 6 were brought back to the original posts. ( 3 ) IT is also alleged that the other petitioner, H. M. Mahesh who was working as Assistant Agricultural Officer, Watershed Development Department, belur, came to be promoted as Agricultural Officer, Watershed development Department, Belur, and he was relieved of his duties as Assistant Agricultural Officer and assumed charge as Agricultural officer, Watershed Development Department on 2-7-2001. ( 4 ) THE petitioner, K. R. Mallesha Gowda challenged the same on the ground that his transfer cannot be effected at the behest of an MLA which is not in public interest. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced and the materials placed on record and case-law on the point found that the transfer order was approved by the Chief Minister as per the general guidelines. The Tribunal also observed that the applicants who were making a grievance that the respondents have been brought back to certain places by the order impugned at the behest of an MLA are no exception, as on earlier occasion similar attempts were made by them to secure their place of choice if not before the issuance of the order dated 18-7-2001 but before their promotion and issuance of the order dated 26-6-2001. The Tribunal also found that there was no mala fides and transfer order was not in violation of the guidelines or statutory provisions and not interfered. The same is challenged before us in writ petition. ( 6 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order has not been issued in the public interest and is in violation of the general guidelines issued by the State, whereby the transfers during the year 2001-02 were banned and that the impugned order is passed only to accommodate respondents 5 and 6. ( 6 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order has not been issued in the public interest and is in violation of the general guidelines issued by the State, whereby the transfers during the year 2001-02 were banned and that the impugned order is passed only to accommodate respondents 5 and 6. As such the transfer order is liable to be interfered with. ( 7 ) IN response to the notice, respondents 5 and 6 have filed their statement of objections denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the circular instructions are applicable in respect of the officers from other Departments such as Forest Department who are deputed to Watershed Development Department coming under Agriculture and Horticulture Secretariat. It is also stated that there was promotion of more than 700 officials from the State from Assistant agriculture Officer to Agriculture Officer out of which Hassan District alone accounts for 27 officials (vide Annexure-A) and thereafter with some modifications Annexure-D, dated 18-7-2001 was passed and after approval of all the concerned authorities as per normal procedure of the department. ( 8 ) WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. ( 9 ) THE law is well-settled, that transfer is an exigency of service. One cannot insist to remain in a particular place. The transfer order can only he challenged if transfer is made in violation of statutory provisions or is tainted with mala fides. It is also well-settled that this Court will not enforce any administrative manual or other administrative instructions not having the force of law. ( 10 ) AS per the facts culled out, the only grievance is that the petitioner, k. R. Mallesha Gowda has been transferred at the behest of an mla within 15 days of his earlier transfer. As per the procedure prescribed, premature transfer has to be approved by the concerned authority and in the instant case, the same has been approved by the Chief minister. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is violation of statutory provisions. In absence of any specific averment of mala fides on the part of authorities, the argument that this transfer itself is mala fide is not acceptable. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is violation of statutory provisions. In absence of any specific averment of mala fides on the part of authorities, the argument that this transfer itself is mala fide is not acceptable. The Administrative Tribunal in the circumstances has not interfered and the discretion so exercised by the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious in the facts of the given case. On consideration, we find no error or illegality in the order of the administrative Tribunal so as to call for any interference. Writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. --- *** --- .