Judgment : The petitioner, who was working as Senior Superintendent in the Directorate of Homoeopathy at Thiruvananthapuram, challenges Ext.P3 order of transfer passed by the Director of Homoeopathy on 18.2008. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Superintendent and posted at District Medical Office (Homoeo) Kannur as per order dated 8.3.2000 issued by the Director of Homoeopathy. He was later transferred to Pathanamthitta by order dated 6.2000. After serving for three years at Pathanamthitta, the petitioner requested for a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram. That request was granted by order dated 211.2004 and he joined duty as Senior Superintendent in the District Medical Office (Homoeo), Thiruvananthapuram on 12.2004. In March 2005, the petitioner was transferred to Government Homoeo Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and in August 2005 to the Directorate of Homoeopathy at Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P3, the petitioner was transferred to District Medical office (Homoeo), Kollam and the first respondent was transferred and posted as Senior Superintendent in the petitioners place at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 essentially on two grounds. The first contention is that as he has less than two years to retire, he is entitled to be retained at Thiruvananthapuram (his native place). The second contention is that as per the guidelines governing transfer, though he has completed three years at Thiruvananthapuram, he can be replaced only by an officer who has completed three years service at another station. The petitioner contends that the first respondent had served for less than two years at Kollam and therefore as per the guidelines he is not entitled to be transferred out and posted at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has a further case that transfers on compassionate grounds cannot be effected otherwise than at the time of general transfer and Ext.P3 is bad on that count also. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P7 government order to contend for the position that the first respondent is not due for transfer from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P3 recites that the petitioner and the first respondent are mutually transferred to give transfer to the first respondent on compassionate grounds. Ext.P3 also notices that the petitioner has completed three years term at Thiruvananthapuram. Going by the guidelines governing transfer, the petitioner is liable to be transferred out from Thiruvananthapuram. Then the only question is whether the Director was right in posting the first respondent as the petitioners substitute at Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Ext.P3 also notices that the petitioner has completed three years term at Thiruvananthapuram. Going by the guidelines governing transfer, the petitioner is liable to be transferred out from Thiruvananthapuram. Then the only question is whether the Director was right in posting the first respondent as the petitioners substitute at Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Apex Court has in State of U.P. and others v Gobardhan Lal [2004(11) SCC 402] held as follows: "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 employee 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 transfers or 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 status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of 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". 3. 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". 3. From thedecision of the Apex Court, it is clear that an order of transfer cannot be lightly interfered with and that it can be set aside only if it is passed by an incompetent authority or is made in violation of any statutory rule or is proved to be vitiated by malafides. In the instant case, the petitioner has no case that the order of transfer evidenced by Ext.P3 was passed by an incompetent authority or that it is issued in violation of any statutory rule. The Apex Court has in the aforesaid decision held that guidelines governing transfer exist only for the sake of guidance and that they do not confer on the employee any enforceable right. Such being the situation, the transfer of the petitioner under Ext.P3 cannot be faulted either on the ground that it is in violation of any statutory rule or for the reason that it is passed by an incompetent authority. Further the petitioner has completed three years term at Thiruvananthapuram and was liable to be transferred out from Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner cannot therefore legitimately complain about his transfer from Thiruvananthapuram. As regards the plea of mala fides, the petitioner has alleged that he had given evidence in support of the complaint lodged by Smt.Ajitha Kumari before the Police and the Kerala Womens Commission and that the office bearers of the NGO Union did not relish the same and were instrumental in transferring out the petitioner. As noticed above, the petitioner does not dispute that he has completed the prescribed term at Thiruvananthapuram. Apart from merely alleging that the transfer is mala fide, the petitioner has not produced any cogent material based on which this Court can safely come to the conclusion that the petitioners transfer was not in the exigencies of service, but motivated by other considerations. Therefore the transfer cannot be said to be bad on that ground as well. 4. Apart from merely alleging that the transfer is mala fide, the petitioner has not produced any cogent material based on which this Court can safely come to the conclusion that the petitioners transfer was not in the exigencies of service, but motivated by other considerations. Therefore the transfer cannot be said to be bad on that ground as well. 4. The petitioner further relies on Ext.P7 to contend that the first respondent is not entitled to be transferred out from Kollam because he has not completed three years at Kollam. As noticed above, guidelines governing transfer exist only for the sake of guidance and the petitioner or any other employee cannot seek enforcement of the guidelines. The petitioner who has completed three years at Thiruvananthapuram cannot be heard to say that he can be replaced only by someone who has completed a similar term elsewhere. The transfer of the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kollam which is a neighbouring district cannot be said to be in any way illegal. The writ petition is in my opinion wholly without merit and misconceived. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. It is submitted that on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court on 18.2008, the petitioner has been continuing at Kollam though the first respondent had assumed charge on 18.2008. Since this Court had thought it fit and proper to grant a stay on 18.2004, if the petitioner joins duty at Kollam on or before 10.2008, the official respondents shall treat the petitioner as in continuous service without break in the station to which he is transferred.