Judgment [Per: Hon'ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. (Oral)] Sri M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. Sri Ashish Joshi, Brief Holder for respondents They are heard on admission. 2. Appellant Smt. Chandrakala has filed this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of High Court Rules against the judgment dated 31-01-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 69 of 2007 (S/S); order dated 09-07.2007 passed in Review Petition No. 541 of 2007; and the order dated 18-08-2007 passed in Recall Application No. 1036 of 2007. 3. Appellant Smt. Chandrakala filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 13 Nov. 2006 and 23 Dec. 2006 passed by respondents no. 1 in mid term of the session and as well as in violation of election norms. II. Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Head Mistress in Primary School, Jakh Karanprayag, Chamoli and to pay salary and other allowances admissible as and when due along with arrears of salary. III. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost of the petition to the petitioner." 4. Petitioner, thus, was challenging the orders dated 13-11-2006 and 23-12-2006, whereby the petitioner was transferred and relieved from Primary School Jakh (Karanprayag), District Chamoli to Primary School, Harakoti, District Chamoli. 5. Appellant Chandrakala, who was posted as Head Mistress, Primary School Jakh (Karanprayag), District Chamoli, was transferred and relieved vide order dated 13-11-2006 to Primary School, Harakoti, District Chamoli. 6. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner then made a statement at Bar that he was confining his prayer only to the extent that the transfer of the petitioner, on humanitarian ground, may be stayed till 30-04-2007. The learned Single Judge, on the ground that petitioner's daughter Km. The learned counsel for the petitioner then made a statement at Bar that he was confining his prayer only to the extent that the transfer of the petitioner, on humanitarian ground, may be stayed till 30-04-2007. The learned Single Judge, on the ground that petitioner's daughter Km. Pratima Bhatt was to appear in Intermediate Examination-2007 and her son Navin Bhatt was to appear in High School Examination-2007, took humanitarian view in the matter and, while disposing of the writ petition vide judgment dated 31-01-2007, directed that the impugned orders dated 13-11-2006 and 23-12-2006 shall remain stayed till 30-04-2007 only and the petitioner shall stand relieved on 01-05-2007. 7. Sri M.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the petitioner/appellant has been transferred by the respondents on the basis of some complaints without affording any opportunity to the petitioner / appellant to rebut those complaints. 8. Sri Ashish Joshi the learned Brief Holder for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the transfer of the petitioner / appellant from Primary School Jakh (Karanprayag), District Chamoli to Primary School, Harakoti, District Chamoli is a routine transfer. 9. The Apex Court, while considering the scope of interference in the matter of transfer of a Government servant, in the case of Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2005(7) SCC 227 observed in paras 9 to 11 : "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. 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 3-4-1986. 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. 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." 10. Reverting to the case in hand, the petitioner after having availed the reliefs granted by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 31-01-2007, in all fairness, ought to have jointed at the transferred place - Primary School, Hurakoti, District Chamoli. The transfer of a Government servant is an incidence of service. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 31-01-2007 and orders 09-07-2007 and 18-08-2007, whereby the appellant's writ petition, review petition and recall petition were dismissed. 11. As we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders, the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.