JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA and Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, JJ.--Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No.1 to 5. 2. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of transfer dated 12.5.2010 passed by the opposite party No.2-Special Secretary, Medical and Health, U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.1, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Senior Consultant, S.S.P.G. District Hospital, Varanasi to Senior Consultant, District Hospital, Lalitpur. 3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after being selected through U.P. Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer on 14.2.1988 and while working as such, he was promoted on the post of Senior Consultant at S.S.P.G. District Hospital, Varanasi in the month of September, 2009. He submits that pursuant to the oral complaint being moved by unknown person, opposite party No. 6 Hon'ble Minister, Medical and Health, U.P. Civil Secretariate, Lucknow, summoned the petitioner, to which the petitioner tendered his explanation, wherein it has been stated that the patient was not operated prior to one month as his hemoglobin was below 5% and as soon as his hemoglobin was above 10%, he had operated the patient. He submits that there is no complaint ever made against the petitioner in his 22 years of service. Further, the impugned transfer order has not been passed either in public interest or in administrative exigency and as such, the petitioner has been transferred merely on the dictate of the Hon'ble Minister. He also submits that it is the policy decision of the Government that no one will be transferred during financial year 2010-11. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer at Varanasi in the year 1988 and has continued as such till 2009. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Consultant and was posted at S.S.P.G. District Hospital, Varanasi and as such, keeping in view more than 20 years service rendered at Varanasi, he was transferred by means of the impugned order. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Consultant and was posted at S.S.P.G. District Hospital, Varanasi and as such, keeping in view more than 20 years service rendered at Varanasi, he was transferred by means of the impugned order. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Before dealing with the merits and demerits of the case, it would be relevant to refer various case laws on the subject. 6. In Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta1, the Apex Court has held that: 1. 1992 (1) SCC 306 . "No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider It feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees." 7. In the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas2, the employee placed reliance on Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra), in support of his contention where certain guidelines have been issued, as far as practicable, they must be adhered to and based on the said decision, it was contended where transfer order has been issued in breach of administrative guidelines, when challenged, it is incumbent upon the authorities to give reasons, which justify breach of such guidelines and in absence thereof, the order has to be set aside being arbitrary and illegal. Negativing this contention and after referring the judgment in Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra), the Apex Court in S.L. Abbas (supra) said: 2. AIR 1993 SC 2444 =1993 (67) FLR 293 (SC). "The said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the respondent's contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the administrative instructions/guidelines are not followed, much less can it be characterised as mala fide for that reason. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the administrative instructions/guidelines are not followed, much less can it be characterised as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions." In para 7 of S.L. Abbas (supra), the Apex Court has held as under: "The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right." The judgment in S.L. Abbas (supra) has clearly set at rest the question that the order of transfer when challenged on the ground of violation of administrative instructions/guidelines, neither it is obligatory on the authorities to explain as to why they have passed the order of transfer, which is not consistent with the conditions of the administrative guidelines nor failure to provide such explanation would result in an inference that the exercise of power is malicious in law. Thus, in no manner the argument can be allowed to be stretched so as to invite interference with the order of transfer except where order of transfer is found to be in violatiop of statutory provision or is vitiated by mala fide. 8. Law laid down herein above has consistently been followed subsequently also, inasmuch as, in National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Sri Bhagwan ad another1, the Apex Court held as under: 1. 2001 (91) FLR 259 (SC). "It is by now well-settled and often reiterated by this Court that no Government servant or employee of, Public Undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at anyone 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." (Emphasis added) 9. Then in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal2, it was held: 2. 2004 (101) FLR 586 (SC)=2004 (18) AIC 445. "It is too late in the day for any Govt. 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. 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." (Emphasis added) 10. 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." (Emphasis added) 10. All the above judgments have been quoted and followed in the case of Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India and others3. 3. AIR 2005 SC 3341 =2005 (61) ALR 23 (Sum.). 11. A Division Bench of this Court also in Special Appeal No. 1293 of 2005, Gulzar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 7.11.2005 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68143 of 2005, R.K. Pandey v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and others, decided on 26.10.2005, have also taken the same view. It would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce caution in the words of the Apex Court as expressed in Gobardhan Lal (supra) as under: "A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fide when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer." 12. Another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 243 (S/B)/2007, Uma Shanker Rai v. State of U.P. and others decided on 31.7.2007 has also taken the same view and we are in respectful agreement thereto. 13. One more important aspect of the matter is that the Government servant does not have right not to comply with the transfer order without there being any interference or otherwise protection given by the Court or by the superior authority and to keep on filing petition after petition challenging the order in the High Court. 13. One more important aspect of the matter is that the Government servant does not have right not to comply with the transfer order without there being any interference or otherwise protection given by the Court or by the superior authority and to keep on filing petition after petition challenging the order in the High Court. Government servant cannot claim that he should be posted at a particular place for a particular period. The transfer is an incidence of service. The posting of Government servant by issuing transfer order is a natural requirement in service law. The transfer is effected keeping in mind the exigency of service, and in public interest or for administrative reasons. It is the sole discretion of the appointing authority to post the Government servant at any place where he/she is more required. Of course, if transfer order has been passed in violation of any statutory Provision or Rule or is a result of mala fide or bias of the authorities, then that can be subjected to scrutiny by the Court but unless the order so suffers, the High Court will, normally, not interfere in the transfer order. 14. In the instant case, there is admittedly a complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner fully knows about that complaint as is evident from the stand taken in the writ petition itself. The plea of the petitioner that he cannot be transferred on such a complaint deserves to be rejected outright. It may be mentioned that instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of a charge of negligence in performing his duties, he has only been required to be transferred. 15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. 16. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.