Judgment : In W.P.No.20552 of 2008, the petitioner has prayed for to quash the order dated 7. 2008 passed-by the third respondent posting the petitioner in Karaikudi Water Project and consequential direction to the respondents to retain the petitioner in the present post or in any other post in the Public Works Department (Buildings) alone as per G.O. (Per) No.36, dated 12. 2008 of PW (D2) Department in Chennai City. 2. In W.P.No.22160 of 2008, the consequential order posting the petitioner at Thiruvadanai passed by the fourth respondent is being challenged with the consequential prayer as prayed in the earlier writ petition. 3. Since the issue involved in both these cases are one and the same the same and the petitioner is also one and the same, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. .4. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 8. 1986 in the Public Works Department and after serving in various places, he was posted as Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (Buildings), Valluvar Kottam Section, Chennai-34 on 9. 2006. By order dated 6. 2008, the first respondent transferred the petitioner to the officer of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources, Organisation, Plan Formulation Circle, Chennai and the petitioner was directed to get orders from the first respondent. The petitioner challenged that order in W.P.No.15337 of 2008, wherein it was claimed that one Robert Jayakumar, who is the co-brother of the petitioner filed W.P.No.6701 of 2008 by way of Public Interest Litigation against one Mr. Asokan and some other officials of the Public Works Department. Apart from filing another W.P.No.12879 of 2008, he also obtained a direction in Crl. M.P.No.1512 of 2008 from XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and on his complaint, First Information Report was filed against the said Asokan and some other officials and the said matters are pending. According to the petitioner, he has nothing to do with the above cases filed by his co-brother as he is inimical towards him and he is not in speaking terms with him. According to the petitioner, the Government has decided to bifurcate the Public Works Department (General) as Public Works Department (Buildings) and Water Resources Organisation and the petitioner also gave his option to remain in the Public Works Department (Buildings). According to the petitioner, the Government has decided to bifurcate the Public Works Department (General) as Public Works Department (Buildings) and Water Resources Organisation and the petitioner also gave his option to remain in the Public Works Department (Buildings). When the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was pending, the petitioner was posted at Trichy Region by order dated 26. 2008. The said order was also challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.15337 of 2008 and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. The petitioner was ordered to report before the Karaikudi Project, by order dated 7. 2008 and within the Karaikudi Project, he is further posted at Thiruvadanai office by order dated 37. 2008. The said order posting at Karaikudi Project and the consequential order of actual posting at Thiruvadanai office is challenged in these writ petitions on the ground that the petitioner having given his option to be in Public Works Department, Buildings Division, cannot be transferred to Water Resources Organisation contrary to his option exercised. It is further stated that the transfer order is passed during the middle of the academic year, within three years and the petitioner having only six years of remaining service, therefore, he should be allowed to serve in Chennai. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit by contending that the petitioner being an employee of the Public works Department has no right to question the transfer order and the option exercised by the petitioner to be in Buildings Division will be considered when the claims of all the similarly placed Junior Engineers of the Public Works Department are considered. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having exercised his option to be in the Public Works Department (Buildings) cannot be transferred to Water Resources Organisation against his will and the transfer order made during the middle of the academic year within two years of his present place of posting is unsustainable, as the same is in violation of Government Orders. 7. 7. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is in the service of the Public Works Department and the Department is entitled to effect transfer within the Public Works Department, Water, Resources Organisation being within the Public Works Department; and the bifurcation has not become final and therefore, the petitioner is bound to accept the transfer, order and the petitioner’s claim for retention in the Public Works Department (Buildings) will be considered at the appropriate time, when the claims of the Junior Engineers are considered by the Department. 8. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the earlier order transferring the petitioner to Water Resources Organisation and the posting given to Trichy Region have become final, since the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging both the orders were dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to challenge the consequential orders posting him at Karaikudi Project and the final order posting him at Thiruvadanai office. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. .10. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department. The Water Resources organization is also one of the wing of the Public Works Department. Therefore, there is no prohibition to transfer a person working in the Public Works Department (Buildings) to Water Resources Organisation. The contention of the petitioner is that he having given an option to serve in the Public Works Department (Buildings), he cannot be transferred in the Water Resources organization in view of the issuance of G.O. (Per) No.36, dated 12. 2008. The scheme of bifurcation of the Department into Water Resources Organisation and Building Organisation is still in infant stage and as per Item No.22 of paragraph-4 of the said Government Order, the inter organizational transfers could not be made only from the date of Notification of such bifurcation. Even though the bifurcation is approved by the Government in principle, necessary amendment to the service Rules has not been issued by the Government till date, which is made clear in the Government Order itself particularly in paragraph-5. It is stated that the proposal to amend the Special rules are directed to be submitted by the Chief Engineer. 11. Even though the bifurcation is approved by the Government in principle, necessary amendment to the service Rules has not been issued by the Government till date, which is made clear in the Government Order itself particularly in paragraph-5. It is stated that the proposal to amend the Special rules are directed to be submitted by the Chief Engineer. 11. On the basis of the said statement contained in the Government Order, the learned Advocate General submitted that the bifurcation is not given effect to and still it is under process. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having given an option, he cannot be transferred to Water Resources Organisation and consequential posting at Thiruvadanal is answered by the respondents by filing an affidavit dated 11. 2008 stating that the option exercised by the petitioner will be duly considered and proper action will be taken in terms of the letter dated 210. 2006 of the Engineer-in-Chief, WRO and Chief Engineer (General), PWD, at the time of allocation of staff to the respective wings of the department,. From the above statement, it is evident that at the level of Junior Engineers/the allocation of staff is yet to be made. 12. The statement made by the respondents in the affidavit dated 11. 2008 is recorded. The learned Advocate General also stated that the option given by the Junior Engineers have not yet been considered by the respondents and the petitioner’s option will also be considered while considering the services of Junior Engineers for absorption in different wing. .13. In view of the said statement, there is no merit in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having given an option to serve In the Buildings Division cannot be transferred/posted in the Water Resources Organisation. .The posting of the petitioner in Water Resources Organization and the consequential posting given in Trichy Region was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.15337 of 2008. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court, by order dated 18. 2008 on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, the impugned order in this writ petition i.e. on 7. 2008 was served on the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court, by order dated 18. 2008 on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, the impugned order in this writ petition i.e. on 7. 2008 was served on the petitioner. The petitioner having given up his right to challenge the order placing the petitioner in the Water Resources Organisation and posting him in Trichy Region, the consequential posting given in Karaikudi Project of Water Resources/the final posting given at Thiruvadanal officer cannot be found illegal. 14. The other contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is transferred within two years, during the middle of the academic year cannot be sustained, in view of the settled legal position that transfer of a Government servant is an incident of service. The scope of interference in transfer matters is already considered in several judgments of the Supreme Court. 15. (a) The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision union of India v. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444 : (1993) 4 SCC 357 : 1993-II-LLJ-626 in paragraph 7 held as follows at p.627 of LLJ: “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 not 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.” (b) In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt AIR 1993 SC 2486 in paragraph 3, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus, “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused.” (c) In National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. V. Shri Bhagwan AIR 2001 SC 3309 : (2001) 8 SC 574 : (2001) supp MLJ 44: 2001-II-LLJ-1243 wherein at para 5, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows at p.46 of MLJ: “5 ….. It is by now well settled and often reiterated by this Court that no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the 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 a matter of routine, as though they are the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned.” 12. The power of the Court while dealing with the transfer order is explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following decisions. (i) In State of U.P. and Another v. Siva Ram and Another AIR 2004 SC 4121 : (2004) 7 SCC 405 at paragraph 5 the Honourable Supreme Court held thus, “5. The power of the Court while dealing with the transfer order is explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following decisions. (i) In State of U.P. and Another v. Siva Ram and Another AIR 2004 SC 4121 : (2004) 7 SCC 405 at paragraph 5 the Honourable Supreme Court held thus, “5. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is net only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management/as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. V. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574 .” (ii) In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey and Others AIR 2004 SC 4850 : (2004) 12 SCC 299 in paragraph 4 the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows, “4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not be interfered with by Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by mala fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (See Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa (1995) Supp 4 SCC 169). Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation of operative guidelines/the Court cannot interfere with it (See Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 ). Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation of operative guidelines/the Court cannot interfere with it (See Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357 ). Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any operative guidelines or rules the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union of India v. Janradhan Debamth (2004) 4 SCC 245 , it was observed as follows: “No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice 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 the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan (supra).” 16. The administrative instructions and guidelines issued for transfer has no statutory force and what is the effect of its non-observance is also considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision Chief Commercial Manager, South Central, Railway v. G. Ratnam (2007) 8 SCC 212 in paragraph-20 held as follows: “20. It is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which are justifiable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rules, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution providing therefor. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rules, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 17. Similar orders passed by the Department was upheld by me in the decisions Chinnasamy v. District Collector, Salem ( 2006 2 MLJ 474 and Samraj, P.v. Commissioner of Police (2007) 3 MLJ 290 : 2007 (2) CTC 437 . 18. From the above judgments, it is evident that unless there is a statutory violation or mala fide is proved, transfer orders cannot be interfered. 19. There is no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.