Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner has assailed transfer order dated 28.6.2012 whereby she has been transferred from H.P.C.C.W, Headquarter, Shimla to Balika Ashram Kalpa, District Kinnaur vice respondent No.3. Petitioner has remained posted in and around Shimla since 2.5.1988. She was directed to start Balwadi Centre at Nari Dhar, Bhattakufer on 1.12.2001. Thereafter, she was directed to join her duties at Balwadi Centre, Panthaghatti (Kasumpati) on 20.4.2007. The Balwadi Centre, Panthaghatti (Kasumpati) was closed and the petitioner was deployed in the Head Office on 28.1.2010. Respondent No.2 Bimla Verma was transferred from Balika Ashram, Sunni, District Shimla to Balika Ashram, Kalpa, District Kinnaur on 20.6.2003. She joined her duties on 30.6.2003. She was transferred from Balika Ashram, Kalpa, District Kinnaur to Shishu Greh/Working Women Hostel, Shimla on 18.4.2012. Since she was not relieved, she approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4158/2012. In sequel to the judgment dated 31.5.2012, respondent No.2 was relieved on 21.6.2012. She joined her duties on 27.6.2012. 2. As far as respondent No.3 Sheela Verma is concerned, she has remained posted at Bal/Balika Ashram, Sunni, Balwadi Centre, Mahadev, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, Balwadi Centre, Tikkar, Tahiyana, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, Balwadi Teacher Kotkhai and Balwadi Centre Kanrot, Tehsil Kumarsain. Thereafter, on 27.4.2009, she was deployed in Shishu Greh/Working Women Hostel, Shimla. She was transferred from Shishu Greh/Working Women Hostel, Shimla to Balika Ashram, Kalpa, District Kinnaur on 18.4.2012. She assailed this order by way of CWP No. 3040/2012. Petitioner filed representation against the transfer order dated 18.4.2012 on 3.5.2012 in sequel to order dated 1.5.2012. The fact of the matter is that she was adjusted in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Theog and the transfer order dated 18.4.2012 was cancelled. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has vehemently argued that his client is working as Teacher and could not be posted as Warden at Balika Ashram, Kalpa. 4. It is evident from the reply filed by respondent No.1 that the petitioner was initially appointed as Warden vide Annexure R-1 dated 31.3.1986. Respondent No.1 has also taken a policy decision to utilize the services of the Teachers against the vacant vacancies on 28.6.2012. Petitioner has remained posted, as is evident, from the facts enumerated hereinabove, in and around Shimla since 1988. She has no indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular place. Respondent No.1 has also taken a policy decision to utilize the services of the Teachers against the vacant vacancies on 28.6.2012. Petitioner has remained posted, as is evident, from the facts enumerated hereinabove, in and around Shimla since 1988. She has no indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular place. Respondent No.2 Bimla Verma had been working at Kinnaur since 2003 and she has already been transferred from Balika Ashram, Kalpa to Shishu Greh/Working Women Hostel, Shimla vide order dated 18.4.2012. Respondent No.3 has worked at various places, including in Districts Mandi and Shimla. In Balika Ashram, Kalpa, Mail Warden cannot be posted. There is no arbitrariness in the decision of respondent No.1 whereby petitioner has been posted as Warden vide order dated 28.6.2012 after respondent No.2 was relieved on 21.6.2012. Transfer of the petitioner has been made to Kalpa after taking into consideration her overall stay in and around Shimla. 5. We have also come across office order dated 23.3.2009 whereby one Sh. Anil Sharma, Warden has been retained at Headquarters, Shimla upto 30.6.2009. Sh. Anil Sharma was required to be posted as Warden in Bal Ashram. There is no justification for retaining Sh. Anil Sharma as Warden at Headquarters for indefinite period. It is made clear that in all the Balika Ashrams only female Teachers/Warden are posted. 6. Transfer is an incidence of service. Scope of judicial review in transfer matters is very limited. Petitioner has not made out any case for interference in the transfer order. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.