Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.- Heard Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Sanchit Asthana, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By means of present writ petition, the impugned order dated 23.04.2010 passed by Superintending Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Mandal, Faizabad is under challenge. 3. Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is working on the post of Junior Engineer at 33/11 K.V. Upkendra-Maharua, Ambedkar Nagar, by order dated 23.04.2010 issued by Superintending Engineer, Vidyut Vitran Mandal, Faizabad, transferred from 33/11 K.V. Upkendra-Maharua, Ambedkar Nagar to 33/11 K.V. Upkendra-Kumarganj, Faizabad of the Vidyut Vitran Khand-II, Faizabad and in pursuance to the said order, impugned order dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure no.1) has been passed by the opposite party no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the above said order submits that it has been passed at the behest of political pressure exercised by line man Prabhaker Nath who has nexus with Munna Lal ji Verma of the Ruling party of the State of Uttar Pradesh, as a result of which the order dated 23.04.2010 has been passed by opposite party no. 1, as such the same is arbitrary in nature and liable to be quashed. 5. He further submits that the aforesaid transfer order dated 23.04.2010 and impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed in pursuance to the same by opposite party nos. 1 & 2 respectively are contrary to law as his sons are studying in the District Ambedkar Nagar so if the petitioner is transferred their studies will suffer in the mid-term of their studies, as such the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, so liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Undisputedly, in the present case, the petitioner who is working on the post of Junior Engineer in Uttar Pradesh Power Cooperation Ltd. at 33/11 K.V. Upkendra-Maharua, Ambedkar Nagar transferred to 33/11 K.V. Upkendra Kumarganj, Faizabad of the Vidyut Vitran Khand-II, Faizabad. Further, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is holding a transferable post, as such in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others Vs. Further, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is holding a transferable post, as such in view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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. 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 and in the case of Union of India another Vs. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 and N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others (1994) 6 SCC 98 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. In the case of Chief General Manager, ( Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another Vs. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SCC 532 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is needless to emphasize that a government employee or any servant of a public undertaking has no legal right to insist for being posted at any particular place. It cannot be disputed that the respondent holds a transferable post and unless specifically provided in his service conditions, he was no choice in the matter of posting. Since the respondent has no legal or statutory right to claim his posting at Agartala, therefore, there was no justification for the Tribunal to set aside the respondent's transfer to Dimpur. 9. It cannot be disputed that the respondent holds a transferable post and unless specifically provided in his service conditions, he was no choice in the matter of posting. Since the respondent has no legal or statutory right to claim his posting at Agartala, therefore, there was no justification for the Tribunal to set aside the respondent's transfer to Dimpur. 9. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner has not impleaded the person against whose behest or political pressure exercised transfer order has been passed, so the argument which is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of transfer has been passed at the behest of the political pressure is liable to be set aside has no force and accordingly rejected. 10. Another point which has been raised and argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that his sons are studying in District Ambedkar Nagar, so the transfer order is against the principle of natural justice as the same has been passed during mid-session of the studies of his son, is also got no force as in the case of Rajendra Prasad Vs. 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 Vs. 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." 11. The same view has been reiterated by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gulzar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and other, 2006 (5) AWC 4755 and another Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.P. Jindal Vs. State of U.P., 2002(1) AWC 306 and also in the case of Jagendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 3 UPLBEC 2338. 12. State of U.P. and other, 2006 (5) AWC 4755 and another Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.P. Jindal Vs. State of U.P., 2002(1) AWC 306 and also in the case of Jagendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 3 UPLBEC 2338. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.