Manmohan Sarin, J. ( 1 ) RULE. WITH consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The date 9th August is cancelled and is preponed for today. ( 2 ) PETITIONER Mr. G. Srinivasan is a B. E. (Electrical ). He joined National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd in the year 1984 as an Engineer. Petitioner found his footing in the commercial wing of the organization and was last posted at New Delhi upto June, 1998 as Deputy Manager (Commercial ). Petitioner who appears in person submits that thereafter began his woes. Petitioner was promoted as a Manager on 10. 6. 1998. He was initially given transfer order for Bangalore. This was changed to Dadri. Mr. Srinivasan submits that for the last six years and so, he has been posted at Dadri. His wife is employed in Delhi. Petitioner for the last two years has been pursuing L. L. B. (Evening) Course in University of Delhi. This requires the petitioner to commute from Dadri to Delhi and back and is very onerous and tiring. Petitioner has been requesting the respondent to post him back to Delhi so that he can complete his law degree, which will also help in advancement of his career. ( 3 ) PETITIONER submits that respondent s policy is to endeavour to post husband and wife at the same station. Secondly the company professes to encourage pursuit of higher education and therefore petitioner who despite all odds is pursuing the law course should be encouraged to do so or facilitate the same by posting him at Delhi. As regards petitioner having already served for 14 years in Delhi and then being transferred out, petitioner states that at least there are 43 senior officers, who have been in Delhi for more than 14 years. It is the petitioner who has been singled out for this discriminatory treatment. He submits that at the time of promotion, he was the senior most officer who was singled out, while other were accommodated within their stations. Petitioner states that he has suffered hostile discrimination and therefore prays that for acquiring higher education, he ought to be posted at Delhi. He has already spent 6 years in Dadri and the minimum requirement for posting at a station is three years. Petitioner is thus eligible for a transfer. Petitioner states that he has suffered hostile discrimination and therefore prays that for acquiring higher education, he ought to be posted at Delhi. He has already spent 6 years in Dadri and the minimum requirement for posting at a station is three years. Petitioner is thus eligible for a transfer. ( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for respondent in opposition. She submits that the petitioner was posted after 14 years of stay in Delhi and has been posted at Dadri instead of Bangalore. Respondent rather accommodated the petitioner on his request that his wife was employed in Delhi and therefore he ought to be given a station nearby. Hence, petitioner was accommodated by posting him at Dadri which is 60 KM. It is stated that respondent has various projects and plants where the postings can be made. In the instant case, the petitioner though an Engineer by qualification, had been working in Commercial Section and was posted at Dadri, where his expertise was required as they have introduced "availability Based Tariff". She further submits that transfer is an incidence of service. There is no specific plea of malafide or bias against any individual or his superior who can said to be inimical to the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and their submissions have been summarized above. I have also been taken through correspondence and the documents relating to the policy of the company on transfer as well as pursuit of higher educational qualifications. ( 6 ) IN the present case, it is not disputed before me that the petitioner did not take permission from the respondent before enrolment in the LLB course. It is rather his case that this permission is not required. On going through NTPC Scheme for higher studies, it is noticed that there is also provision for study leave without wages. Petitioner on being asked, whether he would seek the same, states that he does not wish to do. As such, the question of grant of study leave is not under consideration. Petitioner desires that he be posted at Delhi so that he can comfortably complete the last year of his course. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the documents as pointed out, I find that no case for malafide or discrimination against the petitioner is made out. Petitioner desires that he be posted at Delhi so that he can comfortably complete the last year of his course. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the documents as pointed out, I find that no case for malafide or discrimination against the petitioner is made out. It may be so that there are number of officers who have like the petitioner stayed at a station for 14 years or there are others who have not been moved for more than 14 years. Posting of officers and their optimum utilization is the prerogative of the management. The court does not interfere unless malafide or arbitrariness is writ large on the record. I do not find any such thing. Petitioner was posted at New Delhi for 14 years. The respondent sought to accommodate him by cancelling his transfer to Bangalore and accommodated him at a station which is 60 kms away so that while meeting the exigency of service, he can also have an opportunity of being with his family as frequently as possible and without affecting his performance. ( 8 ) THERE is yet another aspect which the respondent has urged i. e pursuit of LLB would not be conducive of advancing the petitioner s professional career. In my view, it is not necessary to join issue on this aspect since the petitioner has been in commercial department and is presently in maintenance department. Nevertheless with commercial background, it cannot be said that law degree would not be conducive in his career growth. Be that as it may, the petitioner has declined to take study leave without pay. In these circumstances, it has to be held that petitioner does not have an enforceable right to seek transfer to Delhi. It may be observed that it would be entirely for the respondent to consider his plea in future postings depending upon their exigency of service and requirement. ( 9 ) PETITION is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.