JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Raj Priya Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Singh learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by opposite party No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by impugned order dated 17.11.2009, the petitioner was transferred from Faizabad to Basti in mid session, as such, the order of transfer is totally arbitrary and unreasonable as the petitioner’s son is studying in B.Sc. Ist year and one daughter is studying in Inter final and another is studying in Primary class in District Faizabad, so the mid session transfer shall effect the studies of his childrens. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The law is well settled that transfer being exigency of service can be effected by the employer concerned in accordance with its administrative exigency, in the interest of administration and public interest at any point of time and that cannot be monitored and guided by this Court unless it may be shown that transfer order is vitiated on account of the contravention of the statute, or lacks jurisdiction or mala fide. 6. Admittedly, in the present case, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is holding the transferable post as such in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “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 order 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. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. 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.” 7. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India another v. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 and N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others, (1994) 6 SCC 98 holding therein if a person holding a transferable post, is transferred and there is no violation of any statutory/mandatory rules then the same is not subject to judicial review. 8. So far as the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is against the principle of natural justice as the same has been posted during mid-session of the studies of his son and daughters, has also got no force as in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. Union of India, 2005 (2) ESC 1224 after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education Madras and others v. O Karuppa Thevan and another, 1996(1) UPLBEC 347 this Court has held as under : “ The issue of transfer in mid academic session was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that” the fact that children of the employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. "Therefore, it is for the employer to examine as to whether transfer of an employee can be deferred till the end of the current academic session. The Court has no means to assess as what is the real urgency of administrative exigency. Thus, the Court is not inclined to consider this submission at all.” 9. "Therefore, it is for the employer to examine as to whether transfer of an employee can be deferred till the end of the current academic session. The Court has no means to assess as what is the real urgency of administrative exigency. Thus, the Court is not inclined to consider this submission at all.” 9. The same view has been reiterated by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gulzar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(1) ESC 40 (All)(DB) and by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.P. Jindal v. State of U.P., 2002(1) AWC 306 and also in the case of Jagendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(6) ADJ 453 . 10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 11. However, it will not preclude the petitioner from making appropriate representation before opposite party No. 1 within a period of two weeks from today explaining his personal problems, if any, and if such a representation is made, the same maybe considered by the said authority within a period of six weeks thereafter in accordance with law. 12. No order as to costs. ————