The petitioner is an Assistant Surgeon. His qualification is MBBS with specialization in Hospital Administration. He was posted in the dispensary located within the premises of the J&K High Court where he served up to 2003. From this dispensary he was transferred and post at Leprosy Hospital Jammu vide order No. 113-G of 2003 dated 22.2.2003. After having served for about 8 months at the Leprosy Hospital vide Govt. order No. 1115-HME of 2003 dated 21.10.2003 he was posted as Causality Medical Officer in Govt. Medical College Jammu. Then again by Govt. order No. 80-HME of 2004 dated 29.1.2004 he was transferred and posted as Resident Medical Officer in C. D. Hospital Jammu. After about five months thereafter, according to the petitioner he was verbally directed by the Principal Medical College Jammu to work in the casualty ward of the hospital. By order dated 9.9.2004 he was directed to act as Member for verifying the supplies of various items received in the stores of the hospital. Vide Govt. order No. 428-HME of 2004 dated 18.10.2004, where under transfer of 101 doctors in the interest of administration and public healthcare has been ordered, the petitioner is one of them. He has been transferred from Govt. Medical College Jammu to CHC Bani against the post of B-Grade Aneasthist. The petitioner through this petition is assailing his order of transfer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that though he has been working against a clear vacancy and has not completed his normal tenure of two years on the post yet has been transferred to a remote and militancy infested area of district Kathua. His premature transfer is in violation of transfer policy in vogue. Under the policy the respondents are obliged under law to allow him to serve at any particular place of posting for a minimum period of two years. The petitioner is trained in administration from IGNOU and has two years experience qua the said post and has also worked in B.S.F. and is fully capable of handling every emergent situation but the respondents while issuing the order impugned have not taken into consideration his special qualification. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that the respondents have not purposely disturbed such doctors who are having longer stay than the petitioner. The names of these doctors are Dr.Gautam Goel and Dr. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that the respondents have not purposely disturbed such doctors who are having longer stay than the petitioner. The names of these doctors are Dr.Gautam Goel and Dr. Sanjay Mahajan who are working as RMOs for the last ten years and are not even trained in the administration. This has caused severe discrimination to the rights of the petitioner vis-`-vis the above two doctors. The petitioner has further submitted that most of the doctors who have been transferred vide the order impugned were serving on attachment basis or infact have got themselves attached at the places of their choice but the petitioner was not attached at the time of passing of the order impugned and according to him the respondents have mistakenably applied their decision of detaching such doctors who are serving on attachment basis at different places. The transfer order therefore is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3. The stand of the respondents projected in their reply is that healthcare of the citizens of the State has priority. The Government is under obligation to provide better health care to its citizens. Though the Government has a number of doctors but however, unfortunately they have been able to manage their posting in Jammu city only for their convenience against non-existent posts or even in some cases the posts had been transferred leaving the people of the area wherein the posts were created and wherein doctors had to work at the mercy of the God. So it was decided that the people of the entire state including rural area would be given better health care or at least where the posts ore existing the doctors are posted so that the people of the said area get health care and the doctors perform their duties for which they have been appointed. It is further stated that the petitioner has been transferred to CHC Bani in the interest of administration. Mr. Naik, learned Advocate General, has submitted that transfer is an exigency of service, at any time it can be ordered keeping in view the requirement of providing healthcare to the citizens of the State residing at different places. Transfer being in the interest of administration merits not to be interfered with. 4. Mr. Mr. Naik, learned Advocate General, has submitted that transfer is an exigency of service, at any time it can be ordered keeping in view the requirement of providing healthcare to the citizens of the State residing at different places. Transfer being in the interest of administration merits not to be interfered with. 4. Mr. Sethi learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that petitioners qualification is only MBBS with Diploma in Hospital Administration and as such has no expertise in anesthesia but vide the order impugned he has been transferred against the post of B-Grade Specialist Anesthesia and therefore, the transfer order is bad in law for having been made without application of mind. 5. The ground urged in my view is not tenable. The hospital where the petitioner has been transferred a post of B-Grade Anesthetist is available. Simply because he has been transferred against the said post it does not mean that he would have to perform the duties of that post. The only purpose of his transfer against that post appears to be that his pay etc. shall be drawn against the said post. The transfer order nowhere says that the petitioner shall have to perform the duty of Anesthetist. 6. Mr. Sethi next contends that the petitioner has been discriminated upon for the reason that he has been picked tip and transferred prematurely whereas two other doctors named in the petition having more than ten years stay at Jammu have not been touched. The contention is devoid of any force. Transfer is an exigency of service and it is the prerogative of the employer to see at what place the services of an employee can be utilized properly and beneficially in the larger public interest. An employee holding a transferable post has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place for any particular period. Even where normal tenure is fixed by any guideline, the Government can order transfer of such an employee prematurely if it considers the transfer necessary in the interest of administration and public interest. Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Even where normal tenure is fixed by any guideline, the Government can order transfer of such an employee prematurely if it considers the transfer necessary in the interest of administration and public interest. Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. In Union of India v. Janardan Debanath (2004) 4 SCC 245 the Supreme court observed as follows:-- "No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such order passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned." In State of U.P. and others v. Govardhanlal, 2004 (AIR)SCW 2082 it was held by the Supreme court as follows:- "It is too late in the day for any Govt. servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desire. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as if found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. The order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision." 7. Keeping in view the law settled down by the Supreme Court even if there is a guideline that normal tenure of a person at a post shall be of two years such guideline firstly is not binding upon the Government being author of the guideline and secondly does not legally vest enforceable right in favour of an employee that he cannot in any of the circumstances or even in the interest of administration be transferred before completion of his normal tenure. No employee has a right to insist that he should be allowed to continue on a particular post for any length of period. 8. Mr. Sethi has further contended that policy decisions of the Government, like a transfer policy, are binding upon the Government, if the policy is not contrary to any statute or enactment. He argued that the Government has laid down the policy that normal tenure of an employee on a particular post shall be two years and therefore such employee can not be transferred prematurely. In support of his contention he has relied upon Romeshwar Parsad v. M.D.U.P. Nigham and ors., Reported in 1999(8) SCC 381 and Virinder S. Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and Ors, reported in 1999(3) SCC 696. Both these authorities are distinguishable. The policies referred to therein are not transfer policies but policies issued under the relevant rules. Moreover in the present case right of the administration to transfer an employee flows from provisions of Rule 27 of J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules 1956. Both these authorities are distinguishable. The policies referred to therein are not transfer policies but policies issued under the relevant rules. Moreover in the present case right of the administration to transfer an employee flows from provisions of Rule 27 of J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules 1956. This Court in Nazir Ahmed Vhat v. State of J&K, 2000 SLJ 466 held that an employee who holds a transferable post has no right to remain at a particular place, Premature transfer does not amount to violation of any right and in Mohd. Yaqoob v. State of J&K 1984 SLJ 167 this court held that Government orders requiring that an officer should not be transferred before completion of two years service at a post are not rigid rules which cannot be relaxed. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Govardhanlals case(supra) the only right available to the petitioner on the basis of any guidelines or policy of the Government, that an employee shall not be transferred before expiry of normal tenure of two years, is to approach the higher authorities for redress or his grievance. The Court cannot interfere with the transfer order on that ground. 10. Mr. Sethi learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner has not been relieved by the authority under whom he has been working. Mr. Naik learned Advocate General submits that fresh relieving order by the competent authority shall be passed. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition of the petitioner, which is accordingly dismissed; alongwith connected CMPs. Interim direction, if any is vacated. The petitioner, if so chooses, can make a representation to the government for claiming the benefits of the Government order containing policy decision.