Judgment : This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in letter No.22345/E3/2009-3, dated 4.1.2010, to quash the same and further to direct the respondents to transfer the petitioner to a nearby district adjacent to Puducherry Union Territory. The order challenged in the writ petition is one of refusing to transfer the petitioner closer to the place of work of his wife who works in a College in Puducherry. 2. It is stated in the order that the petitioner holds a higher position in Government and belongs to a State Cadre. He has to work wherever he is posted. His request to get posted in Cuddalore, Villupuram or Tiruvannamalai cannot be granted. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Venkatramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan appearing for petitioner and Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents and perused the records. 4. The grounds raised by the petitioner are not valid and it does not stand scrutiny by this Court. The petitioners request based on personal difficulties or hardship cannot be a ground to get posted to a place of his choice. This court in the earlier W.P.No.21005/2009 by an order dated 15.10.2009 directed the respondents to consider his case. On such direction, the impugned order dated 4.1.2010 came to be passed. The learned Senior Counsel took exception to some of the passing remarks made in the order. But those observations have no relevance in deciding the case on hand. Those observations have no legal effect on the petitioners career and it cannot give a cause of action to set aside the impugned order. 5. Since a transfer can be made on administrative grounds, the Court cannot go behind the said reason so long as the power has been exercised properly by the authorities. Even following of the guidelines are not required when a transfer is made. 6. As admittedly, since the petitioner belong to a State Service created under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and they are entitled to serve wherever a posting is given to them. Therefore, the basic question is whether the petitioner is entitled to resist an order of transfer. 6. As admittedly, since the petitioner belong to a State Service created under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and they are entitled to serve wherever a posting is given to them. Therefore, the basic question is whether the petitioner is entitled to resist an order of transfer. Under the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India being a State Service, transfer is an incidence of service of any service personnel and unless the transfer is made on the ground of mala fide or for extraneous reasons, the Court cannot go behind the power of the authorities in effecting transfer. 7. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. Vs. Siya Ram and another ( 2004 (7) SCC 405 ). In paragraph 5 observed as follows. 5. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice 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 or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan 1. 8. Further, the Honble Supreme Court in yet another decision reported in 2004 (11) SCC 402 (State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal), in paragraph 7 observed as follows:- "7. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan 1. 8. Further, the Honble Supreme Court in yet another decision reported in 2004 (11) SCC 402 (State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal), in paragraph 7 observed as follows:- "7. 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." (Emphasis added) 9. More or less on an identical circumstance, the Supreme Court vide its decision in Bank of India Vs. More or less on an identical circumstance, the Supreme Court vide its decision in Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta reported in 1992 (1) SCC 306 , in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 had observed as follows: "5.There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the others posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all-India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. In addition, in the present case, the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking that he was prepared to be posted at any place in India and on that basis got promotion from the clerical cadre to the officers grade and thereafter he seeks to be relieved of that necessary incident of all-India service on the ground that his wife has to remain at Chandigarh. 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. 6. The High Court was in error in overlooking all the relevant aspects as well as the absence of any legal right in the respondent to claim the relief which the High Court has granted as a matter of course. The High Courts order must, therefore, be set aside." 10. In the absence of any valid legal grounds and factual pleadings regarding mala fides, the Writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.