ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned A.C. to Advocate General, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of communication made, vide Letter No. 86 dated 27-01-2012 issued by the Chief Controller of Accounts, Finance (Audit) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna/Respondent No. 3 (Annexure 1' to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was intimated regarding rejection of his representation against his order of transfer and it has further been prayed to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of his transfer. 3. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner, who is a Senior Auditor, was transferred from Patna Division to Magadh Division, Gaya, vide Office Order No. 94 dated 30-06-2011 (Annexure 1A' to the writ petition). The order of transfer was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No. 18884 of 2011. However, at the time of hearing of the petition, it was noticed that the petitioner had already been relieved vide memo dated 15-07-2011, a bench of this Court permitted the petitioner to first join at the transferred post. Subsequently, the petitioner joined and the writ petition was finally disposed of on 25-10-2011 granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the authority concerned and the authority concerned was directed to examine and pass appropriate order within specified time. This Court also directed to consider the existing policy of the State Government on the point of posting of husband and wife at a particular place. After the disposal of the writ petition, the impugned order i.e. Annexure 1' was passed on 27-01-2012. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The writ petition was earlier heard and allowed on 27-03-2012 by a bench of this Court. The order impugned i.e. order dated 27-01-2012 was set aside by this Court. However, the State, against the order of the single bench, preferred an appeal, vide L.P.A. No. 1302 of 2012, which was finally allowed and order of single bench was set aside and the matter was remitted back. The L.P.A. was primarily allowed on the ground that the State was not given proper opportunity nor notice was directed to be issued to private respondent. 4. The L.P.A. was primarily allowed on the ground that the State was not given proper opportunity nor notice was directed to be issued to private respondent. 4. Subsequently, by order dated 08-08-2013, notice was directed to be issued to respondent no. 4. However, respondent no. 4 did not enter appearance in the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interlocutory application was also filed on behalf of petitioner, vide I.A. No. 4143 of 2013 with a prayer to amend relief portion in the writ petition. The relief, as sought for in the paragraph-1 in the interlocutory application, is as follows:- “This is also for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the Office Order No.260 dated 03-05-2013 passed by Respondent No.3 [Chief Controller of Accounts, Finance (Audit) Department] contained in Annexure – 8 whereby they have cancelled the deputation of the Petitioner and have directed him to join the Magadh Division, Gaya, against their own stand taken earlier, alongwith quashing Annexures-11 & 13 in the interest of justice and also for issuance of direction to Respondent No.3 in tune with the policy decision towards Annexure-12 of the Petition.” 5. This Court by order dated 25-11-2013 directed to treat the amendment, as sought for in paragraph-1 of the interlocutory application, as part of the writ petition. In amendment petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 03-05-2013 whereby deputation of the petitioner in Patna University was got cancelled. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that presently the petitioner is functioning at Magadh Division, Gaya in the light of order of transfer. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner, who is Government employee, is posted within the district of Patna and the petitioner is an old person, having several diseases, is required to be posted at a place where his wife is posted. He further submits that one son and daughter of the petitioner are residing out of station and as such, it is a fit case for re-considering the case of the petitioner for his posting at Patna. 7. Sri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned A.C. to Advocate General has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that it is true that Annexure 1' does not contain any reason, but fact remains that Annexure 1' is only a communication regarding rejection of his representation against petitioner’s transfer. 7. Sri Prabhu Narayan Sharma, learned A.C. to Advocate General has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that it is true that Annexure 1' does not contain any reason, but fact remains that Annexure 1' is only a communication regarding rejection of his representation against petitioner’s transfer. He further submits that reason was assigned in the file itself. He further submits that the petitioner and his wife are not posted in the same department. The wife of the petitioner is posted as Assistant Teacher in the Education Department, whereas, the petitioner is employed in the Finance Department and as such, according to learned State counsel the Government decision for posting husband and wife at a particular place will not be applicable in the present case since only in those cases preference are being given at one place where both husband and wife are employed in one department. While referring to averments made in the counter affidavit, he submits that it is true that reason in Annexure 1' is not assigned, but it was dealt with in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. First of all, order of transfer passed on 30-06-2011, was already given effect during the pendency of the earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 18884 of 2011. It is true that while disposing of the said writ petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file representation with a direction to pass order in accordance with law, particularly; in view of Government policy, thereafter representation of the petitioner was considered and it was rejected and communicated vide Annexure 1' to the writ petition. So far as transfer of an employee/officer is concerned, time without number it has been held that transfer is the incident of service. The Court is of the opinion that it is the prerogative of the employer to post a particular person at a particular place. This has been approved long back by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported in 1991 (1) PLJR (S.C.) 61 [Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. –Vs. – State of Bihar & Ors.]. Particularly, paragraph – 4 of the Judgment would be necessary to be quoted, which is quoted here-in-below:- “4. This has been approved long back by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case reported in 1991 (1) PLJR (S.C.) 61 [Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. –Vs. – State of Bihar & Ors.]. Particularly, paragraph – 4 of the Judgment would be necessary to be quoted, which is quoted here-in-below:- “4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are 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 malafide. 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 those aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” 9. From the counter affidavit, it is further evident that decision for posting husband and wife is not mandatory. Moreover, preference is required to be given in a case, where husband and wife are employed in one department. It is not a case that wife of the petitioner is also employed in the Finance Department, rather she is in Education Department. On perusal of Annexure 1A', whereby, the petitioner was transferred from Patna Division to Magadh Division, Gaya, it is evident that it was not an isolated case of the petitioner, but it was a chain transfer, whereby, alongwith petitioner about 54 Senior Auditors were transferred from one place to another. From the counter affidavit, as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was posted in Patna since 1998, whereas, as per the decision of the Government, normally; officers/employees are being transferred on completion of three years. 10. In view of the fact that the petitioner remained at Patna since the year 1998, there is no ground for quashing the order of transfer. 10. In view of the fact that the petitioner remained at Patna since the year 1998, there is no ground for quashing the order of transfer. So far as Annexure 1' is concerned, it is true that reason has not been assigned, which was necessary in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, but keeping in view the fact that representation was in respect of the transfer of the petitioner and only on the ground of absence of reason, the Annexure 1' may not be interfered with. 11. I do not find any ground for interference. 12. The writ petition stands dismissed.