Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Inspector in the Cooperative Department on 29.11.1985. The petitioner was assigned the work of Special Officers of the Cooperative Societies (whole sale) at P. Agaram, Arimalai and Karaikudi with headquarters at P. Agaram. 2. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Inspector on 27.3.98. He was thereafter promoted from Co-operative (wholesale) to Co-operative societies (Dairy) by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative societies, Vellore Zone in Na.Ka.No.4990/2001/A1 dated 20.5.2001. The petitioner was placed under the control of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Dairy) Vellore. 3. The petitioner was thereafter posted as “writer” “A” section in the headquarters and assigned additional duties like Senior Inspector Vellore Range for the Milk Producers Co-operative Societies functioning in the Panchayat Unions of Walajah and Sholinger by proceedings of the respondent dated 13.6.2001. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, was reverted back to his parent department vide impugned order dated 16.5.2002. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that normally a Government Servant is allowed to complete the service atleast for three years and therefore, the impugned order of reverting back the petitioner to the parent department cannot be sustained in law. This contention is totally misconceived. 5. There is no statutory rule which stipulates that the person cannot be transferred prior to three years. Even otherwise in this case the petitioner was reverted to parent department and he cannot claim any right to work outside the parent department. 6. In the writ petition the action of the respondent is also challenged on the ground of malafide, but no specific allegation of malafide has been levelled nor anybody has been impleaded as party against whom allegation of malafide has been made. 7. It is settled law that transfer is the incidence of service which is not open to judicial review until and unless the transfer is in violation of statutory provisions of law or otherwise activated by malafide. 8. n this case, neither transfer is in violation of statutory provision of law nor any substantial allegation of malafide has been made. The writ petition is totally misconceived and ordered to be dismissed. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.