Judgment : The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether a writ Petition under Article 226 could be maintained to quash an order of transfer on the ground that it is not fully in consonance with the guidelines for transfer. G.O.(Prayer:) No.12/04/P&ARD dated 10.9.2004 (Ext.P5) issued by the Government contains the guidelines for “Minimum Tenure Policy for Government Employees of the State”. Ext.P2 dated 22.2005, issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, contain the guidelines for the transfer of employees in the Health and Family Welfare Department including doctors. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext,P6 order of transfer is violative of Exts.P2 and P5 guidelines. 2. The petitioner is working as Associate Professor, Department of Genito Urinary Surgery, in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. As per Ext.P6 order of transfer-dated 15.2008, the petitioner was transferred and posted in Medical College, Kozhikode. As per the same order of transfer, the fifth respondent Dr. S. Vasudevan, Associate Professor, department of Genito Urinary Surgery, Medical College, Kozhikode, was transferred and posted as such in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The sixth respondent, Dr. Venugopalan, is working as Associate Professor in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the Sixth respondent is senior to the petitioner. 3. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner joined service as Tutor in Medical College on 2.1991. He was promoted as Assistant Professor on 24.1998 and posted in the Medical College, Calicut. He remained there in the same capacity up to 310.2003. (In the reply affidavit it is stated that the date shown as 310.2003 is a mistake and that the petitioner was working at Calicut from 24.1998 to 27.2000.) The petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor on 28.2005 and was posted in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that the petitioner has declared Thiruvananthapuram as his home station. 4. The second respondent, the Director of Medical Education, issued Ext.P3 draft proposal for transfer and postings in 2008. Name of the petitioner is not included in Ext.P3 draft proposal. On the other hand, Dr. S. Vasudevan (the fifth respondent) was proposed to be transferred from Calicut to Thiruvananthapuram. In the remarks column it is stated as follows: “Eligible for transfer. (No open vacancy.). Dr. Name of the petitioner is not included in Ext.P3 draft proposal. On the other hand, Dr. S. Vasudevan (the fifth respondent) was proposed to be transferred from Calicut to Thiruvananthapuram. In the remarks column it is stated as follows: “Eligible for transfer. (No open vacancy.). Dr. G. Venugopalan, who has completed three years in Medical College, Trivandrum, to be transferred out.” It is stated in the Writ Petition that the sixth respondent has only one year of outstation service and, therefore, he was liable to be transferred. It is also stated that the proposal was to transfer the fifth respondent from Calicut to Thiruvananthapuram and to transfer the sixth respondent from Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner states that apprehending that the draft proposal to transfer the sixth respondent from thiruvananthapuram would be canceled, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 9.4.2008, to the first respondent. The further allegation in the Writ Petition is that on an extraneous consideration and acting in an arbitrary manner, the first respondent issued Ext.P6 order transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram. Instead of transferring the sixth respondent. Since Ext.P6 shows that the transfer was issued considering the representation made by the fifth respondent, it cannot be said that the order of transfer was issued in public interest. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not completed three years at Thiruvananthapuram and, therefore, the order of transfer is violative of paragraph 3 of Ext.P5 guidelines. Ext.P6 is challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary, malafide, illegal, contrary to the guidelines and that it was issued due to extraneous consideration. A departure from Ext.P3 proposal, according to the petitioner, would show that ext.P6 was issued due to extraneous consideration. The petitioner is aged 52 years and he is due to retire within a period of three years, whereas, respondents 5 and 6 would retire only after five to seven years. 5. Separate counter affidavit have been filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. The fifth respondent states that in implementation of Ext.P6 order, he was relieved with effect from 16.5.2008 from Medical College, calicut. He reported for duty before the Principal, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram on 17.5.2008 FN and he was permitted to join duty as Associate Professor of Genito Urinary Surgery. The petitioner has failed in establishing any mala fides or arbitrariness in issued Ext.P6 order of transfer. He reported for duty before the Principal, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram on 17.5.2008 FN and he was permitted to join duty as Associate Professor of Genito Urinary Surgery. The petitioner has failed in establishing any mala fides or arbitrariness in issued Ext.P6 order of transfer. Ext.P6 order of transfer was issued not on the basis of the representation submitted by the fifth respondent, but it was by way of general transfer. The petitioner had worked at Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram continuously since 28.7.2000. Ext.P3 initial proposal for transfer does not confer any indefeasible right on the petitioner to insist that he must be posted on the basis of the original proposal. It is further stated in the counter affidavit by the fifth respondent thus: “9. With regard to the averments in paragraph 2 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner was working as Lecturer in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram from 01.02.1991 to 18.04.1998. On his promotion as Assistant Professor he was transferred and posted as Assistant Professor in the Medical College Calicut as per GO (Rt) No.793/93/H&FW dated 28-03-1998. On completion of 27 months of service as Assistant Professor in the Medical College, Calicut the petitioner was transferred to Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram on his request as per GO dated 25.07.2000. Accordingly, he was relieved of his duties with effect from 27.07.2000 from the Medical College, Calicut as per order dated 27-07-2000. Photocopies of the above GO dated 28-03-1998 and GO dated 27-07-2000 are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5(e) and (f) respectively. Ever since, he has been continuing in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor as per GO dated 25-08-2005 and he was posted as such at Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. A photocopy of the above GO dated 25-08-2005 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R-5 (g). The petitioner has worked in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and he cannot insist that he should be allowed to continue in the post of Associate Professor at Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has completed 3 years from the date of his promotion as Associate Professor in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has completed 2 years and 9 months in the post of Associate Professor in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and the shortage of service in the post of Associate Professor in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram is hardly 3 months. The petitioner has completed 3 years from the date of his promotion as Associate Professor in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has completed 2 years and 9 months in the post of Associate Professor in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and the shortage of service in the post of Associate Professor in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram is hardly 3 months. that by itself is not a good or valid reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order of transfer.” 6. The fifth respondent has also stated that he had outstation service for a period of more than eleven years. As per Ext.P2 Government Order, the total outstation service should be taken into account for the purpose of transfer. There is no violation of the guidelines as alleged. The competent authority has taken into account all relevant aspects while issuing the order of transfer. The allegations contained in the Writ Petition, in the matter of issue of Ext.P6, were denied by the fifth respondent. 7. The sixth respondent, in his counter, inter alia, contended as follows: the petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts in the Writ Petition. The petitioner has been working at Medical college, Thiruvananthapuram for the last seven years and nine months continuously from 28.7.2000. The averments in the Writ Petition are totally misleading and they were made to make it appear that the petitioner was posted in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram for the first time only on 28.2005 and that he has not completed three years of services in that station. After showing the relevant details, it is stated that the petitioner is having fifteen years of home-station service at Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, including the present continuous service for about eight years. the petitioner has only two years three months and four days of outstation service out of his total service of seventeen years. after issuing Ext.P3 and considering Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner, the Director of medical Education made his recommendations and the Department has prepared a very detailed note in the matter. the note file is produced as Ext.R6(e). Paragraph 17 of Ext.P5 and paragraph 33 of Ext.P2 provides that the total outstation service at the time of transfer has to be taken into consideration. The wife of the sixth respondent is also a doctor working at Thiruvananthapuram. Paragraph 39 of Ext.P2 guidelines provides for the posting of doctor couple at the same station or near stations. Paragraph 17 of Ext.P5 and paragraph 33 of Ext.P2 provides that the total outstation service at the time of transfer has to be taken into consideration. The wife of the sixth respondent is also a doctor working at Thiruvananthapuram. Paragraph 39 of Ext.P2 guidelines provides for the posting of doctor couple at the same station or near stations. The name of the sixth respondent was included in Ext.P3 proposal erroneously and without considering the service details of the petitioner. After considering the service details of the petitioner and that of the sixth respondent, it was realized that among the Associate Professors working in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner was liable to be transferred as he was having longest home-station service and shortest outstation service. The allegations of mala fides, extraneous considerations etc. were denied. 8. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit. It is highlighted in the reply affidavit that the sixth respondent belongs to Changanacherry in Kottayam District. He was appointed as Lecturer on 312.1984. He remained in his home station at Kottayam for more than ten years. On his promotion as Assistant professor, the sixth respondent was posted at Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram on 20.11.1995 and he remained in such capacity up to 28.5.2004, for a period of more than 8 ½ years. The sixth respondent declared thiruvananthapuram as his home station deliberately for the purpose of showing that he was serving at outstation for more than ten years. This was done by the sixth respondent to get undue benefit. On the basis of the assessment made by the petitioner, he has raised a contention that the sixth respondent has only a total outstation service of eleven months and twenty days. After the issue of Ext.P3 proposal. Much pressure was exerted on the Director of Medical Education and accordingly, Ext.R6(e) note was prepared. The petitioner was not heard before changing Ext.P3 proposal. The petitioner is very much affected by the order of transfer since his name was not at all included in Ext.P3 proposal. 9. Heard Senior Advocate Sri. K.P. Dandapani appearing for the petitioner, senior Advocate Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the fifth respondent, advocate Sri. N. Suganthan appearing for the sixth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 10. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 3 and 17 of ext.P5 general guidelines are extracted below: “3. 9. Heard Senior Advocate Sri. K.P. Dandapani appearing for the petitioner, senior Advocate Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the fifth respondent, advocate Sri. N. Suganthan appearing for the sixth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 10. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 3 and 17 of ext.P5 general guidelines are extracted below: “3. No employee who has completed three years of service in a particular station need necessarily be transferred unless there is a claimant who has worked for three years in an outside station to be provided there, or unless a transfer of the existing incumbent has become necessary in public interest.” “17. When there are a large number of applications for a particular station, the order of preference shall be as follows: .(a) Length of continuous service in the station at the time of his/her applying for transfer under consideration will be the criterion for transfer. .(b) Employees who have put in longest period of service outside the particular station will be given first priority. But employees who have had more than a year’s service in assignment in tribal and remote areas and those involving arduous nature of work or who have completed service in the defence service will be given preference by deeming two years of such service as equal to three years. If they are equal to such service thus arrived at, the total service will be taken into account. .(c) Terms like hill station/remote station/work of an arduous nature may be each defined by departments and orders shall be made in this connection.” Paragraph 25 of Ext.P5 guidelines provides that based on the General Transfer Guidelines, each department may discuss with service organizations and frame special provisions in the Guidelines. Paragraph 33 of Ext.P2 guidelines also provides that outstation service will be taken into account at the time of transfer. Paragraph 34 provides that no person shall be transferred by including in the final list, whose name was not included in the drafts list. Paragraph 18 of Ext.P2 guidelines provides that the request for transfer shall be submitted before 15th February. Draft proposals should be exhibited before 15th March in all institutions. Objections are to be filed before 31st March. After considering the objections, order of transfer shall be issued before 15th April. Paragraph 18 of Ext.P2 guidelines provides that the request for transfer shall be submitted before 15th February. Draft proposals should be exhibited before 15th March in all institutions. Objections are to be filed before 31st March. After considering the objections, order of transfer shall be issued before 15th April. Complaints against the order of transfer shall be submitted to the Review Committee headed by the Director of Medical Education and Secretary of Health Department, before 5th May. The Review Committee shall take decision on the complaints and communicate the reply to the person concerned. The Heads of the Departments shall comply with the aforesaid time schedule and issue notification for general transfer accordingly. 11. In the case on hand, paragraphs 18 and 34 of Ext.P2 guidelines were not complied with. The name of the petitioner was not included in the draft proposal, but his name was included in the final list for transfer. It is true that anticipating inclusion of his name in the final list, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation. But, that is not a substitute for compliance of the clear provision in paragraph 34 of Ext.P2 guidelines. 12. Inthe note prepared, namely, Ext.R6(e), it is stated that the petitioner and the sixth respondent are the two Associate Professors who have completed more than three years’ home-stations service at Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, when putting all the cadres together. The home-station service and outstation service of the petitioner and the sixth respondent are shown in the more and based on paragraph 17 of Ext.P5 guidelines, it was concluded that the sixth respondent has the longest outstation service of more than twelve years as against the outstation service of two years, three months and four days of the petitioner. It is also noted in Ext.R6(e) that the petitioner has fifteen years of service in Thiruvananthapuram since 1991 and he has been working uninterruptedly for the last eight years in that station. The sixth respondent has only eleven years of service at Thiruvananthapuram, out of which, he has been working uninterruptedly for the past three years in that station. Ext.R6(e) is concluded by saying that considering the longer period of home-station service by the petitioner and the longer outstation service put in by the sixth respondent, the proposals as shown in the note (which is the same as in Ext.P6) were approved. 13. Senior Counsel Sri. Ext.R6(e) is concluded by saying that considering the longer period of home-station service by the petitioner and the longer outstation service put in by the sixth respondent, the proposals as shown in the note (which is the same as in Ext.P6) were approved. 13. Senior Counsel Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan relied on several decision of the Supreme Court and of this Court to substantiate his contention that even if there is infraction of the guidelines that is not always a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal ((2004) 11 SCC 402), the supreme Court held as follows: “7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employer is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service, Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfer of 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 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.” 14. 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.” 14. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others (1994) 6 SCC 98), the Supreme Court held thus: “…Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superior to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the department heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” 15. It is well settled that transfer of a government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post is an incident of service. Transfer from once place to other, constitute a condition of service. There is no right vested in a government servant to continue at one station. No government servant has any legal right to claim for being posted at any particular place. An order of transfer would not be interfered with lightly in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, unless the court finds that the order is mala fide or that it is against the service rules or that the authority who issued the order had no competence to pass the order. An order of transfer would not be interfered with lightly in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, unless the court finds that the order is mala fide or that it is against the service rules or that the authority who issued the order had no competence to pass the order. (See Gujarat Electricity Board and another v. Atmaram Sugomal Poshani ((1989) 2 SCC 602), State of U.P. andothers v. Ashok Kumar Saxena and another ((1998) 3 SCC 303, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others ((2001) 5 SCC 508) and Venkitaramanan Potti v. Travancore Devaswom Board (1993 (2) KLT 374).) In State of Kerala v. Rajan (1989 (2) KLT 666), a Division Bench of this Court held as under: “….. Even though the State Government enunciated guidelines in the matter of effecting transfers, any deviation from those guidelines also does not amount to violation of any conditions of service. we have pointed out in our earlier decisions that the guidelines enunciated by the State Government in the matter of effecting transfers are not exhaustive in character and a variety of other circumstances could also be taken into account in the matter of effecting transfers. A decision to effect transfers cannot be equated with a judicial or quasi-judicial decision requiring reasons to be given in support of the said decision. It is also not responsible to expect the authorities who are empowered to effect transfers to write judgments in the matter of effecting transfers considering the rival claims and give reasons for accepting one claim or rejecting the order…” .16. In Dr. George Jacob v. State of Kerala (1989 (2) KLT 402), Justice Chettur Sankaran Nair held as under: .“9. I think it unnecessary – if not inexpedient - to evaluate comparative merits of two government servants for purposes of transfer, or retention at a station. These are matters in the province of the Executive Government, so long as they act fairly.” .17. In State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal: (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Supreme Court held thus: .“8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.” 18. No materials are placed by the petitioner, to show that Ext.P6 order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides. The guidelines were followed to a great extent while passing Ext.P6 order of transfer, as is clear from Ext.R6 (e). At the same time, it is clear that the time schedule contained in paragraph 18 of Ext.P2 guidelines and the stipulation in paragraph 34 of Ext.P2 guidelines that a person whose name is not included in the draft list should not be included in the final list of transfer, are not followed in the present case. It is true that Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner was before the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare Department. Ext.R6(e) does not give an indication that Ext.P4 representation as considered. Since the time schedule in paragraph 18 of Ext.P2 guidelines was not complied with, the petitioner did not get an opportunity to file a compliant to the Review Committee. Though paragraph 34 of Ext.P2 guidelines was not followed and that the time schedule as provided in paragraph 18 of Ext.P2 was not complied with, I do not think that Exhibit P6 order of transfer is liable to be interfered with by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has every right to make a representation to the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner has every right to make a representation to the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance. On a consideration of the pleadings long with Ext.R6(e), I am of the view that the guidelines were followed while considering the outstation service and service in the home station for the purpose of making an evaluation as to who should be transferred. In these circumstances, I do not think it proper to grant the relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.