Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners, who are Medical Officers in Bihar Health Services are aggrieved by the orders of their transfer dated 29.6.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders of transfer have been passed by an authority not competent to do so. The Divisional Commissioner is not competent to order the transfer of the petitioners, but, it is only the competent authority in the Department of Health, who can do so. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. The counter affidavit states that the transfer of the petitioners has been ordered by the Establishment Committee under the Chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner; that all the petitioners have completed more than three years at their present place of posting. 5. An order of transfer is an administrative matter not to be interfered with by a Court unless there be any statutory violation or if the transfer be mala fide. Issuance of any instructions by the Government with regard to the transfer and posting only create a right in a Government servant to file a representation. The petitioners have availed the same. Their representations are stated to be pending. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. V/s. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165 has held at paragraph 8 as follows: "8.............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 is 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. This Court has often reiterated that 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. It. therefore, stands as settled law that such administrative circulars create no legal right so as to demand interference with the same. It. therefore, stands as settled law that such administrative circulars create no legal right so as to demand interference with the same. In any event, the admitted position is that the petitioners have been working at the place of their posting for 5-6 years. 8. This writ application has got no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. This shall not prejudice the Respondents for disposal of the representation of the petitioners, which this Court expects shall preferably be disposed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order.