Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is employed in the rank of Sub Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force and was attached to the Central Training College at Coimbatore. She has come forward to challenge the order of transfer transferring her from Coimbatore to Central Training College at Mudkhed. The signal message which was sent to the fourth respondent was in turn communicated to her by a covering letter, dated 7.7.2011. In her place, the fifth respondent who was at Durgapur had been posted. 2. It is the stand of the petitioner that in her career in the CRPF spanning over a period of 20 years, she had been transferred eight times. The last posting at Coimbatore was during September, 2008. It was also stated by her that she had married one G.Krishnamurthy, who was directly recruited as Sub Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu. While she is a Maharashtrian girl, her husband is Tamil. Therefore, she hardly has any support from her parents. Her son is studying SSLC and her daughter is in Class V and that they are studying in Coimbatore. The transfer from Coimbatore to far away place will cause disruption to her family. It was stated that Summer Chain Transfers-2011 of Sub Inspectors released on 20.06.2011 showed that her name was at Serial No.8 and that it was recorded that her husband was working in the Tamil Nadu police at Tiruppur. It is pursuant to that order, the petitioner was attached to the Coimbatore Central Training College with effect from 28.06.2011. The petitioner earlier had taken child care leave on 5.3.2011 for a period of one year. When she was posted to Coimbatore, she had cancelled the leave and joined duty. Now all of a sudden, by the impugned order, she was transferred to a distance place and that too within a period of 10 days of previous posting. It was also stated that originally the fifth respondent was posted at Mudkhed and because of her representation, she was now posted in the fourth respondent and she has been transferred as a modification of the earlier order. 3. It was also stated that under the Standing Order No.2/2011 issued by the Ministry of Personal Grievance, dated 13.09.2009, it was mandatory for the authorities to consider the same place of posting or same station for the married persons. 3. It was also stated that under the Standing Order No.2/2011 issued by the Ministry of Personal Grievance, dated 13.09.2009, it was mandatory for the authorities to consider the same place of posting or same station for the married persons. Therefore, the present impugned order of transfer is clearly contrary to the Standing Order of the Government. 4. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel leading M/s.P.Wilson Associates appearing for the petitioner also contended that the Standing Order No.2/2011 clearly showed that the normal tenure of posting in all static offices and duty Battalions located in the areas other than North East Region, Jammu and Kashmir and the Left Wing Extension affected field areas will be four years including the period of attachment with such offices. The same has been violated in the case of the petitioner. But the very same order clearly shows that the competent transferring authority will have right to transfer a person at any time irrespective of tenure on administrative grounds and in public interest. But, in the present transfer order, it is not shown that there was any administrative ground or any public interest involved. 5. However, the grounds raised by the petitioner cannot impeach the order of transfer issued by the respondents. The competency of the authority who had issued the order is not under challenge. It has been issued by the headquarters and that no malafide is alleged. Neither the Standing Order nor the guidelines issued by the Government of India will have the effect of nullifying the order of transfer passed by the competent authority. Inasmuch as the petitioner is the member of the Central Reserve Police Force, which is declared as armed force of the Indian Union, the petitioner cannot challenge the order of transfer impugned in the writ petition. In this context, the Supreme Court had forewarned the courts from interfering with the order of transfer issued in relation to the members of the armed forces. 6. In this court, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Major General J.K.Bansal Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2005 (7) SCC 227 , wherein the Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of courts interfering with orders of transfer of members of the Armed Forces. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "12. Union of India and others reported in 2005 (7) SCC 227 , wherein the Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of courts interfering with orders of transfer of members of the Armed Forces. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "12. It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are working in public sector undertakings. The scope of interference by the courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted. The courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made." 7. Further, the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178 in paragraphs 8 to 10 and 12 had observed as follows: 8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. 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 contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal1, SCC p. 406, para 7). 9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar2 this Court held: (SCC p. 661, para 4) “4. 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 orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar2 this Court held: (SCC p. 661, para 4) “4. 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 orders 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. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” 10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India3 this Court reiterated that: (SCC p. 103, para 6) “6. ‘the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides and violation of any specific provision’.” 12. As regards Respondent 5, the High Court considered the matter thus: “in our view, it is evident that Respondent 5 also cannot be said to be an officer having a better conduct and integrity in comparison to the petitioner justifying his posting at Ghaziabad and in this regard, it appears that IG (Stamps) did not give correct information to the Principal Secretary. However, it cannot be held that Respondent 1 in passing the order dated 31-7-2007 has acted maliciously or for extraneous reasons amounting to mala fide. Once the basic ground of challenge to the impugned order of transfer that the same is malicious in law falls, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from Ghaziabad to Hapur. Once the basic ground of challenge to the impugned order of transfer that the same is malicious in law falls, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from Ghaziabad to Hapur. It is not the case of the petitioner that his transfer is contrary to rules or has been issued by an authority who is not competent. It is well settled that an order of transfer is amenable for judicial review on limited grounds, namely, it is contrary to rules or has been passed by an incompetent authority or is a result of mala fide. In view of admission on the part of Respondent 1 in his counter-affidavit that Respondent 5 has been found guilty of serious misconduct for causing loss to the Government Revenue by acting without jurisdiction and colluding evasion of stamp duty, in our view transfer of Respondent 5 to Ghaziabad cannot be sustained in view of further admission on the part of Respondent 1 that the interest of the Department requires posting of an honest and efficient person at Ghaziabad.” 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.