Anil Kumar, J.— Heard Sri T.N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of transfer dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Director (Para Medical), Health Department, State of U.P. by which he has been transferred from Raibareli to Sonbhadra. Learned counsel for petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that the same has been passed due to political pressure exercised against the petitioner by one Sri Ram Bahadur Yadav, President Zila Samajwadi Party, Raibareli, as such the same is neither in the administrative exigency of services nor in the public interest. Learned counsel for petitioner also challenged the impugned order on the ground that at Raebareli, the petitioner is getting medical treatment in respect to the disease by which he is suffering and if he is transferred by means of the impugned order then in that circumstances, he will not get the same at Sonbhadra, so the impugned order is arbitrary, liable to be set aside. In addition to the abovesaid facts, learned counsel for petitioner also submits that his children are studying at Raibareli in G.B.S. Public School, Raibareili and the impugned order of transfer has been passed in a mid-session in case if the petitioners are transferred in pursuance to the impugned order, the study of his children will suffer in the present era of competition the petitioner is also getting treatment at Raibarely. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the recoerd. An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and the Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency. As observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433 as under : "Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from employee has no choice in the matter. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." In Union of India vs. H. N. Kirtania, AIR 1989 SC 1774 , the Apex Court observed as under:- "Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules on ground of mala fide." In Union of India Vs. S. I. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2944, the Apex Court has observed that the Government instructions on transfer are mere guidelines without any statutory force and the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with the order of transfer unless the said order is alleged to have been passed by malice or where it is made in vioaltion of the statutory provisions. In State Bank of India vs. Anjan Sanyal, AIR 2001 SC 1478, the Apex Court held as under:- "An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order." In S. C. Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 9 SCC 583 , the Apex Court depricated the practice of approaching the Court by the Government employees against transfer order rather joining the transferred place. In State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165 , the Supreme Court held as under:- "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 of 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. The 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 (See also State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405 )." Further, the person against whom personal mala fides or "malice" is imputed should be impleaded as a party/respondent to the proceedings and he should be afforded opportunity to meet with those allegations. In his absence, no enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations can be made. The reason is very simple. The principles of natural justice require that no person should be condemned unheard. Now if allegations have been made against a person who is not made party to the proceedings and the court proceeds on the basis of those allegations, the person against whom such allegations have been levelled is condemned unheard. The reason is very simple. The principles of natural justice require that no person should be condemned unheard. Now if allegations have been made against a person who is not made party to the proceedings and the court proceeds on the basis of those allegations, the person against whom such allegations have been levelled is condemned unheard. In the case of State of Bihar vs. P. P. Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:- "It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nomine as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. ( All India State Bank Officers' Federation v. Union of India (1997) 9 SCC 151 and I. K. Mishra v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 228 .)" In federation of Rly. Officers Association vs. Union if India & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1344 , the Apex Court has held that the allegation of mala fide has to be specifically made and the person against whom such allegations are made has to be impleaded and in his absence such allegations cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, It is also the settled legal proposition that in case allegations of mala fide are made against any person he is to be impleaded by name, otherwise the allegations cannot be considered. (Vide State of Bihar and anr. Vs. P.P.Sharma, I.A.S. & Anr., AIR 1991 SC 1260 ; DR. J. N. Banavalikar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 89; All India State Bank Officers' Federation & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 151 ; and I.K. Mishra vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 3740 .). Admittedly, in the present case, the person (Sri Ram Bahadur Yadav), President Zila Samajwadi Party, Raibareli against whom on allegation has been made that on his pursuation that the impugned order of transfer order has been passed is not impleaded as party in the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, the person (Sri Ram Bahadur Yadav), President Zila Samajwadi Party, Raibareli against whom on allegation has been made that on his pursuation that the impugned order of transfer order has been passed is not impleaded as party in the present case. So, keeping in view the said facts and the legal position of law stated hereinabove on the point in issue that a challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or tribunals when the same is passed for requirements of the situation concerned in the administrative exigency of services and in the interest of the department. This is for the reason that Courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. So, the argument in question has got no force, rejected. So, the argument in question has got no force, rejected. Next argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from the said medical ailment and in case he has been transferred then he cannot get a medical treatment which he is getting at Raebareli, has got no force because from the perusal of the documents on record, the position which emerged out that medical ailment from which petitioner is suffering is not such a nature for which he should not get treatment at transferred place, so keeping in vei fhe said fact as well as settled proposition of law that transfer being exigency of service can be effected by the employer concerned in accordance with administrative exigency, in the interest of administration and public interest at any point of time and that cannot be monitored and guided by this Court unless it may be shown that transfer order is vitiated on account of the contravention of the statute, or lacks jurisdiction or mala fide, the said position does not exists in the present case, hence, from the argument which is advanced by the petitioner in question that he will not get medical treatment at Sonbhadra has got no force, rejected. Last argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is against the principle of natural justice as the same has been passed during mid-session of the studies of his son/daughter, is also got no force as in the case of Rajendra Prasad Vs. Union of India 2005 (2) ESC 1224 after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education Madras and others Vs. O Karuppa Thevan and another, 1996(1) UPLBEC 347 this Court has held as under:- " The issue of transfer in mid academic session was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that" the fact that children of the employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent." Therefore, it is for the employer to examine as to whether transfer of an employee can be deferred till the end of the current academic session. The Court has no means to assess as what is the real urgency of administrative exigency. The Court has no means to assess as what is the real urgency of administrative exigency. Thus, the Court is not inclined to consider this submission at all." Same view has been reiterated by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gulzar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and other, 2006 (5) AWC 4755 and another Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.P. Jindal Vs. State of U.P., 2002(1) AWC 306 and also in the case of Jagendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 3 UPLBEC 2338. No other points have been argued or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the abvoesaid facts, I do not filed any illegality and infirmity in the transfer order which is under challenge. For the foregoing reasons, the relief as claimed by petitioners in present writ petition cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so the same is dismissed. However, as prayed by petitioner's counsel and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is permitted to make representation in respect to grievance which he has raised in the present writ petition to O.P. No. 2 /Maha Nideshak, Chikitsa Evam Swasthya sevayan, U.P., Lucknow within a period of two weeks from today annexing all relevant documents and material in support of his case and after receiving the same, O.P. No. 2 dispose of within a further period of four weeks thereafter in accordance with law with reasoned and speaking order. _____________