R. B. MISRA, J. Heard Sri Somesh Khare holding brief of Sri Girdhar Nath learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This matter was listed yesterday in the cause list and it was heard and the matter was to be disposed of on 27-3-2003. No counsel has bothered to appear on behalf of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad for representing the case of Chairman/secretary, Director or Addl. Director and case was almost to be finalised, however at the end of the day Sri Somesh Khare learned counsel mentioned the matter to point out some relevant aspects, therefore, this matter has been directed to be listed as unlisted matter today. Today also Sri Somesh Khare holding brief of Sri Girdhar Nath has been heard for and on behalf of the petitioner and no counsel on behalf of the respondents has appeared to assist the Court. 3. In this writ petition the order dated 30-5-1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Addl. Director (Admn.) Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U. P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhuthi Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow has been challenged where by 11 persons working in different categories had been transferred in special circumstances in the interest of administration as well as in the interest of service. According to the petitioner The Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Services (Amendment) Regulations, 1991 provides in the amended provision of Regulation 24 (1) provides that the transfer of a member of centralised service out of routine could be made by Director or Addl. Director or the Regional Deputy Director (Administration ). According to Regulation 24 (2) which provides as below: " (2) The Director or the Additional Director or the Regional Deputy Director (Administration) may in special circumstances transfer any Mandi Sahayak (Kamdar) from the Market Committee to another Market Committee, within the region or any member of one service holding Group `d post other than Mandi Sahayak (Kamdar) from one Market Committee to another Market Committee within the district. " 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no special circumstances was existing for transferring the petitioner from the place of posting i. e. from Atarra/jhansi to Mirzapur, however the counter-affidavit has been filed. Nothing has been averred in the counter-affidavit to get assistance for the disposal of the case as it is poorly drafted. 5. " 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no special circumstances was existing for transferring the petitioner from the place of posting i. e. from Atarra/jhansi to Mirzapur, however the counter-affidavit has been filed. Nothing has been averred in the counter-affidavit to get assistance for the disposal of the case as it is poorly drafted. 5. In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1955, their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 4 of the said AIR): " (4 ). . . . We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judges that transfer is always understood and construed as an incident of service. The words `or other conditions of service in juxtaposition to the preceding words `denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, pension in Rule 19 (1) (a) must be construed ejusdem generis. Any alteration in the conditions of service must result in prejudice to the Government Servant and some disadvantage touching of his pay, allowances, pension, seniority, promotion, leave etc. It is well understood that transfer of a Government Servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore, does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a Government Servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of Government service and no Government Servant can claim to remain in a particular place of in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferable post. . . . " 6. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 532, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 4 of the said AIR): " (4) In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government Servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. A Government Servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. " 7. In Union of India and another v. N. P. Thomas, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1605, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 8 of the said AIR): " (8) In the present case, it cannot be said that the transfer order of the respondent transferring him out of Kerala Circle is violative of any statutory Rule or that the transfer order suffers on the ground of mala fide. The submissions of the respondent that some of his juniors are retained by Kerala Circle and that his transfer is against the policy of the Government posting the husband and wife in the same station as far as possible cannot be countenanced since the respondent holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain in the Kerala Circle itself and cannot claim, as a matter of right, the posting in that Circle even on promotion. " 8. In Union of India and others v. S. L. Abbas, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2444, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as follows (Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said AIR): " (7) Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. 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. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. 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. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. (8) The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950 in service matters. This is evident from a perusal of Article 323-A of the Constitution. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the more surprising that the learned Single Member who passed the impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is thus aware of the norms and constraints of the writ jurisdiction ). The Administrative Tribunal is not an Appellate Authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction interfering with the order of transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior Administrative Officer (Competent Authority ). " 9. In State of Punjab and others v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2486, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 3 of the said AIR): " (3) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950 in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused. " 10. In N. K. Singh v. Union of India and others, (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 98, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 23 of the said SCC): " (23 ). . . . . . . . . Assessment of worth must be left to the bona fide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessments accepted as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a Government Servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the Superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the Courts lack the necessary expertise for Personnel Management of all Government departments. This must by left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated. " 11. In Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp. (4) Supreme Court Cases 169, their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 10 of the said SCC): " (10) It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. (See N. K. Singh v. Union of India ). " 12. As held in (2003) 1 UPLBEC 262 , Riaz Ahmad v. Additional Registrar (Administration), Co-operative Socie-ties, U. P. Lucknow and others, this Court is declined to interfere the transfer order by saying that transfer is an incident of service and the Court does not interfere normally in the transfer orders unless there is violation of any statutory Rules or the transfer is mala fide. 13. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950 has also been settled by the Supreme Court in view of the decisions of Rajendra Roy v. Union of India and another, (1993) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148; National Hydroe-lectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan and another, 2001 (8) Supreme Court Cases 574; State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 508. This Court following the aforesaid principles laid by the Supreme Court in Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1997 (3) ESC 1668 and Onkarnath Tiwari v. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U. P. , Lucknow and others, 1997 (3) ESC 1866, has held that the principle of law unfold in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of service conditions of an employee and is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit, such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the document. I find that by the impugned transfer order in question dated 30-5-1998 the petitioner has been transferred from Jhansi region to another region of Mirzapur by Addl. Director, therefore, the Addl. Director was in power to pass such order of transfer under Regulation 24 (1) of Regulation, 1991 and in the impugned order itself it has been mentioned that in special circumstances, the transfer in question has been made. It is not necessary to elaborate the special circumstances if the authority himself has indicated that the transfer has been made in special circumstances in the interest of administration and in the interest of public. It is not necessary to elaborate the special circumstances if the authority himself has indicated that the transfer has been made in special circumstances in the interest of administration and in the interest of public. Transfer is exigency of service provided it is made in the interest of service administration, to prove service condition and to maintain the system of the service. The Court generally does interfere or make judicial review in the transfer order made in the public interest or in the interest of administration. The transfer is the exigency of service unless it is not made on political vendetta and in colourable exercise of power or mala fidely or in order to harass and punish the petitioner or in derogation to the provisions of act or rule. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred and relied upon the judgment dated 6-9-96 passed in writ petition No. 27721 of 1996, Shashi Kant and another v. Addl. Director (Administration) Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The facts and circumstances of that case, in my respectful consideration, is different and distinguishable to the present case, more so, the legality of the matter of transfer of an individual has to be looked into in the facts and circumstances of that particular case only where there is no infringement of Act or provisions of any rule, therefore, in these circumstances, this Court shall not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950. 16. In view of the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .