JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Petitioner is working as Scientific Officer (Technical Services) in the establishment of Orissa Sands Complex (OSCOM), a unit of M/s Indian Rare Earths Ltd. He seeks to assail the transfer. Order Dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure-4) as well as the Order Dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure-7) by which, the representation filed by him has been rejected. 2. Before traversing the facts, it would be apt to state that Orissa Sands Complex (OSCOM) is one of the units of M/s Indian Rare Earths Ltd. (hereinafter, called in short as "IREL"), which is a Government of India Undertaking & is registered under the Companies Act. The IREL presently has four industrial units, two of which are situated in the State of Kerala i.e. at Chavara Plant & Rare Earths Division, Udyogmandal, one in Tamulnadu (Manavalakuruchi) & the other being Orissa Sands Complex in the State of Orissa. Besides the aforesaid four units the company has also got a Research Centre at Kollam, which is called as Indian Rare Earths Ltd. Research Centre. 3. By efflux of lime & for the sake of convenience a decision was taken to introduce inter-unit transfer of technical persons & officers within the jive set-ups as well as the Corporate Office. 4. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Charge Man in Orissa Sands Complex, Chhatrapur in the year 1987 & by efflux of time he was placed under S-1 Grade-in the Supervisory Cadre in the year 1991. A decision was taken by the Opp. Parties to give effect the Revised Scale of Pay to all the employees holding Supervisor Cadre in different units w.e.f 01.01.1987 but then the said privilege was not extended to S-1 Grade employees of OSCOM. Being aggrieved the Petitioner & 31 others approached this Court in OJC No. 4743 of 1998. 5. In the meanwhile the Petitioner was promoted as an Officer of E-I Grade. While matters stood thus, the Petitioner vide Order Dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure-4) was transferred from Orissa Sands Complex, Chhatrapur, to Chavara unit of Kerala. He submitted written representation highlighting his difficulties & praying to cancel the order of transfer. He also approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1455 of 2009 with a prayer to cancel the order of transfer By Order Dated 02.2.2009 the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing Opp. He submitted written representation highlighting his difficulties & praying to cancel the order of transfer. He also approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1455 of 2009 with a prayer to cancel the order of transfer By Order Dated 02.2.2009 the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the case of the Petitioner & to pass a speaking order dealing with all the points raised by the Petitioner in his representation. It is alleged that after receipt of the order passed by this Court the representation filed by the Petitioner was disposed of in a haste by upholding the order of transfer, without considering the points raised & on 13.2.20098 the relieve order was served upon the Petitioner. After receipt of the relieve order the Petitioner submitted a written representation intimating the authorities that his father was ailing & is in death bed & that his daughter is prosecuting her studies at Berhampur & on that ground the order of transfer may be reconsidered. 6. The Petitioner also approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2545 of 2009 with a prayer to quash the order of transfer dated 23.12.2008 as well as the Order Dated 10.2.2009. This Court by Order Dated 02.9.2009 disposed of the said Writ Petition with an observation that the dispute relating to service conditions & the pay parity of the employees working in the establishment of Orissa Sands Complex, at par with other units, would be considered & the order of transfer dated 23.12.2008 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks i.e., till, a decision is taken by the board/competent authority. In consonance with said direction the Petitioner submitted his joining report on 10.9.2009 but then he was not permitted to join. 7. While matters stood thus, Opp. Party No. 1 issued the office order directing the Petitioner to proceed & join at Chavara unit. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court. 8. After receiving notice a counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Parties. The specific ground taken in the counter affidavit is that the Petitioner being an Officer holding E-1 grade, he has to be transferred in accordance with the policy of the authorities. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court. 8. After receiving notice a counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Parties. The specific ground taken in the counter affidavit is that the Petitioner being an Officer holding E-1 grade, he has to be transferred in accordance with the policy of the authorities. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has been transferred keeping the interest of the company in mind & as there is no mala fide or bias the order of transfer may not be interfered with. The Petitioner has also filed rejoinder & additional affidavits. 9. To appreciate the inter se arguments this Court meticulously went through the pleadings as well as the documents annexed to the Writ Petition. Admittedly the Petitioner is at present holding an Officer's Post. According to law the competent authority has the right to decide, when, where & at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present place of posting. Transfer is not only an incident but also an essential condition of service. It does not affect the conditions of service in any manner. The employee does not have any vested right to be posted at a particular place See B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others. In the case of State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal and Others, it was held that an order of transfer of an employee is a part of his service conditions, as such the same is not required to be interfered with lightly by Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also no more res integra that an order of transfer can be interfered with under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, only if, the Court is satisfied that (a) the said order has been passed by the authority, who has no jurisdiction to do so, (b) if it violates any rule or statute & (c) if it is tainted with mala fide. 10. The facts & circumstances of the present case clearly reveal that the aforesaid circumstances have not been established. The only ground on which the order of transfer is assailed is that Opp. Party No. 1 in their counter affidavit filed in the earlier Writ Petition had taken a stand that the employees of one unit cannot be transferred to the other. The only ground on which the order of transfer is assailed is that Opp. Party No. 1 in their counter affidavit filed in the earlier Writ Petition had taken a stand that the employees of one unit cannot be transferred to the other. But then perusal of the entire pleadings reveals that such a plea was taken only in respect of workmen/non executives & it was specifically averred that the said principle does not relate to Officers, ft is stated by Learned Counsel for Opp. Parties that by change of internal scenario a decision was taken to introduce inter unit transfers within the five units as well as Corporate Office in the year 1998 so as to get the services of experienced hands at all units as & when exigency arose. 11. However, in the case of Director of School Education v. O. Karuppa Thevan the issue of transfer in the mid-academic session was considered by the Supreme Court & it was held that "the fact that children of the employees are studying should be given, due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent", in view of the aforesaid position, after hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of transfer but then considering the submission that the daughter of the-Petitioner is a student of Class-X, which is a very important academic year for a child, this Court disposes of this Writ Petition with the observation that the Petitioner shall be granted leave till end of February, 2010 or shall be permitted to continue at OSCOM, Chhatrapur till then. He shall join at his new place of posting i.e. Chavara Unit at Kerala in the month of March, 2010. It is needless to say that the seniority as well as scale of pay of the Petitioner shall be protected at Chavara Unit, Kerala & he shall be entitled to the same scale of pay which is made available to his counter parts working at Chavara unit in the State of Kerala. With the aforesaid observation this Writ Petition is disposed of. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree.