JUDGMENT By the Court.—This special appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 4.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, by means of which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against his transfer from Lucknow to Balrampur has been dismissed. 2. The appellant, while was posted at Azamgarh, on completion of his tenure beyond three years i.e. almost after four years, was likely to be transferred in the annual chain of transfer and it appears, at that juncture he made some request for his transfer to Lucknow. The transfer order dated 30.6.2008 says that his transfer was effected on his request to Lucknow from Azamgarh. There were certain other persons who were holding the post of Entertainment Tax Officer Grade-II, were also transferred on their own request to Lucknow, namely, Ramesh Chandra Verma and Sri Suresh Kumar Upadhyaya. 3. The appellant, in pursuance of the aforesaid order joined at Lucknow on 5.7.2008 but on (sic.), another transfer order was passed transferring the appellant from Lucknow to Balrampur in public interest. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, submitted that since the appellant was transferred on his own request from Azamgarh to Lucknow, therefore, soon thereafter he could not have been transferred to Balrampur and, in fact, this order has been passed only to accommodate two other persons at Lucknow. 5. Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, has produced the record and submitted that no written request of the appellant for his transfer to Lucknow is available on record and that he has been transferred to Balrampur as the District Entertainment Officer at Balrampur had been relieved for joining at Uttarakhand and the Senior Inspector had taken over charge as such there was no Inspector at Balrampur and, therefore, the appellant has been transferred to Balrampur in public interest. 6. Normally when a government servant makes own request for his transfer to a particular place, it is the discretion of the Government, either to accept the request or not to accept the request but if the request is accepted then the government servant is to be posted at the place of his choice as given by him and once his request is accepted, he is to be allowed to continue at the place of request for a reasonable time, if not in perpetuity. But in a case where public interest demands or where it is found that in the interest of the service, such a transfer is necessary, there would not be any hard and fast rule that such a transfer cannot be made. 7. Transfer is an exigency of service and it is ordered on exigencies, as required. The District Entertainment Tax Officer posted at Balrampur having been relieved for joining at Uttarakhand and there being no Inspector available at Balrampur, if the State Government had chosen to send the appellant at Balrampur, he being the senior most Inspector in Grade-II, it cannot be said that the action suffers from mala fide. 8. The choice of a particular government servant and the place where he is to be posted, lies within the domain of the State Government and unless mala fide and arbitrariness is established and proved, such an action is not open to judicial intervention. 9. One more aspect of the matter is that the appellant though has been transferred on the basis of his request but since the request so made, is not on record, the Court enquired from the counsel for the appellant as to what was his genuine problem, on the basis of which such a request was made. He informed the Court that it was because of the illness of his wife, as she was suffering from Anaemia. There is no document on record to show that his wife was suffering from any such disease nor any prescription or paper relating to medical treatment has been brought on record. To the contrary, two persons, namely, Ramesh Chandra Verma and Suresh Kumar Upadhyaya who were also transferred to Lucknow, their written request says that wife of Suresh Kumar Upadhyaya had a major operation and was ill whereas wife of Ramesh Chandra Verma was a disabled lady with 80% disability. That being so, if the appellant was chosen to be shifted to Balrampur, no interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution or in the special appeal. 10. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant may be allowed to join as he is ready and willing to join at the transferred place i.e. Balrampur. The State counsel has no objection. 12. 10. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. 11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant may be allowed to join as he is ready and willing to join at the transferred place i.e. Balrampur. The State counsel has no objection. 12. We, therefore, further direct that in case the appellant reports for duty at Balrampur within ten days from today, he shall be allowed to join and shall be paid salary from the date of his joining. The payment of salary for the period during which he did not join till the date of his joining, shall be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with rules, within a reasonable time. ————