Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Sri Anirudh Singh Negi, Advocate for the appellant. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent 1 to 3. They are heard on admission. 2. Appellant Smt. Laxmi Devi has filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 28-06-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 738 (S/S) of 2007. 3. Appellant/petitioner Smt. Laxmi Devi filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "(1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the transfer orders/ list dated 14th June, 2007 issued by the State Government (Annexure NO.9 to this writ petition). (2) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30-08-2005 issued by respondent no. 2 (Annexure NO.2 to this writ petition). (3) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case. (4) To award the cost of the present writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 4. The petitioner/appellant, in substance, was challenging her transfer from Chawalkhet, Block Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal to Tingri, Block Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal vide order dated 14-06-2007. 5. The learned Single Judge did not find any illegality in the petitioner's transfer order dated 14-06-2007 and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 28-06-2007. 6. Sri Anirudh Singh Negi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating the petitioner/appellant's submission in proper perspective. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the petitioner/appellant has been transferred within the same Block Chamba in the district of Tehri Garhwal. The appelian/petitioner has not alleged any mala fides to any of the authorities in passing the petitioner's order of transfer. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2005 (7) see 227, while considering the scope of interference in the matter of transfer of a Government servant, observed in paras 8 to 11 : "8. Before we advert to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it will be useful to take notice of the law regarding the scope of interference in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing an order of transfer. 9. Before we advert to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it will be useful to take notice of the law regarding the scope of interference in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing an order of transfer. 9. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar the appellants, who were lady teachers in primary schools, were transferred on their requests to places where their husbands were posted. The contesting respondents, who were displaced by the appellants, challenged the validity of the transfer orders before the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was allowed and the transfer orders were quashed. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court by observing as under: "4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is 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. 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. " 10. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas the respondent was working at Shillong in the office of the Botanical Survey of India and his wife was also working there in a Central Government office. He was transferred from Shillong to Pauri in the hills of U.P. (now in Uttaranchal). He challenged the transfer order before the Central Administrative Tribunal on medical ground and also on the ground of violation of guidelines contained in the Government of India OM dated 34-1986. The Tribunal allowed the petition and quashed the transfer order. In appeal this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and observed as under: '7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. . The Tribunal allowed the petition and quashed the transfer order. In appeal this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and observed as under: '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. 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. " 11. Similar view has been taken in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan wherein it has been held that no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at anyone particular place 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 public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals cannot interfere with such orders, as though they were the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management." 9. The appellant's case when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India and others (supra), we do not find any infirmity either in the order of the petitioner's transfer from Chawalkhet to Tingri or in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, which may warrant interference in this Special Appeal. 10. The Special Appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.