Judgment :- The petitioners are at present working as Wardens in the Welfare Hostel run by the respondent Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department. The post of Warden of the hostel and the Secondary Grade Teacher are interchangeable. There is no difference between the salary or other service conditions. Though the petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers, they were able to get posted as Wardens in the B.T. Scale since the post of Warden has been upgraded to that of B.T scale post. The petitioners have admittedly served the various hostels for more than three years. 2. By the impugned order, the petitioners were directed to be posted to various Adi Dravidar Welfare Schools in the same area within a distance of 5 to 10 kms. They have come forward to challenge the said transfer order. When the writ petition came up on 30.12.2009 during the vacation court, the matter was adjourned after vacation. On 06.01.2010, when the matter came up before this Court, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to take notice and to get written instructions. Accordingly, the matter came up today and the learned Government Pleader is ready with his instructions. 3. Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: a) The order of transfer has been passed before the end of the academic year. b) The order is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.64 Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare Department dated 03.06.2009 and the consequential guidelines issued thereunder. c) Thirdly, since it was stated as administrative reasons, the question of transfer without permission of the Commissioner is not valid. Reliance was placed upon the guidelines issued dated 05.06.2009, wherein it is stated that if after the general transfer any transfer has to be made, the approval of the Commissioner has to be obtained and the transfer should not affect others. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that Para 4.7 of the Government Order itself states that if any person working in the hostel as Warden for more than three years as on 01.06.2009, they should be transferred to the respective schools. Therefore, in the present cases all the petitioners have worked for more than three years as Hostel Warden and they have no vested right to continue in the said school. Therefore, in the present cases all the petitioners have worked for more than three years as Hostel Warden and they have no vested right to continue in the said school. He also submitted that taking into account their family and other interests, they have been transferred to the nearby schools which are situated within 5 to 10 kms from the present place of posting. He further submitted that all the other teachers who have been transferred have joined in the respective places except the petitioner. He also stated that the administrative approval of the Commissioner had also been obtained for effecting such transfer. 5. Even otherwise, the learned counsel relies on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33396 of 2006 and batch cases dated 18.12.2006 and the consequential order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.539 of 2007 and batch cases dated 04.04.2007 to emphasise that similar order was made during the year 2006 and G.O.Ms.No.74 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department dated 21.06.2006 came to be interpreted and this Court held that if there is any transfer during non-transfer period, the approval of the Commissioner is required. 6. In the present case, it is the definite stand of the respondent that approval of the Commissioner has been obtained. Even otherwise in the matter of transfer, this Court has hardly got any judicial review and the petitioners cannot challenge the said order on the grounds stated in the affidavit. 7. Admittedly, since the petitioners belong to a State Service created under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, they are entitled to serve wherever a posting is given to them. Therefore, the basic question is whether the petitioners are entitled to resist an order of transfer or in the alternative, through the Court, can get the posting to a particular place in the absence of Rules. 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. 8. 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 ). 8. 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, it was 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. 9. 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. 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. 10. In the absence of any valid legal grounds and factual pleadings regarding mala fides, the Writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.