JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. This petitioner has approached this court for grant of following substantive relief:- An appropriate writ or order may very kindly be issued and order dated 24.7.2014 may kindly be quashed and set aside and in the alternative the respondents may kindly be directed to immediately provide a substitute as TGT (Non-Medical) in Government High School, Mahog, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. and till that time the respondent No. 3 may not be relieved. 2. The petitioner claims itself to be a School Managing Committee of Government High School, Mahog, constituted under the provisions of Right to Education Act. It is alleged that the school had only one TGT (Non-Medical) respondent No. 3, who is teaching about 147 children who are studying mathematics from Class 6th to Class 10th. In the month of July, the official respondents issued transfer order of respondent No. 3 to a nearby school, which is around 20-25 kilometers from the present school. That school is Middle School, which has been recently upgraded. It is further averred that there are only 6-7 children studying in that school and by posting respondent No. 3, the career of 147 children have been put on stake. It is further claimed that respondent No. 3 is in hurry to join and therefore her transfer order dated 24.7.2014 be quashed and set-aside. 3. The official respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the reply, wherein they have raised preliminary submission to the effect that transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service and the transfer policy is in the nature of administrative guidelines for regulating transfers and these guidelines cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest or in exigencies of service and transfer order made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot be interfered with as they do not confer any legally enforceable right unless shown to be vitiated by malafides or having been made in violation of any statutory provision. On merits, it is averred that there are seven teachers including respondent No. 3 posted in the Mahog school, whereas in Govt. Middle School, Annu u/c GSSS Kelvi where respondent No. 3 was ordered to be transferred has only one teacher. On merits, it is averred that there are seven teachers including respondent No. 3 posted in the Mahog school, whereas in Govt. Middle School, Annu u/c GSSS Kelvi where respondent No. 3 was ordered to be transferred has only one teacher. It is further averred that transfer of respondent No. 3 was to ensure that this newly upgraded school becomes functional. 4. Respondent No. 3 filed a separate reply wherein preliminary submissions regarding locus-standi, suppression of material facts by the petitioner were raised. On merits, it was averred that respondent had been transferred against vacancy as there was no teacher available in Govt. Middle School, Annu to teach Class 6th to Class 8th. The services of respondent were required more in that school, as the students were required to pass the subject of math and science. The vacancy position existing in government high School, Kalvi was placed on record and it was also submitted that it was wrong on behalf of the petitioner to contend that there was only one TGT (Non-medical), because even the Head-teacher posted there is TGT (Non-Medical) and one more teacher TGT (Science) was posted there. It was further contended that transfers and postings of teachers were the sole prerogative of the employer and therefore, the petitioner had no locus or cause of action to file and maintain a writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have one through the records of the case. 5. The law regarding transfer is well settled. The matters of transfers and postings are purely administrative matters and the Courts must not ordinarily interfere in such matters unless and until administrative policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide or actuated with bias. The Government must have free hand in settling the terms of its policies. It must have reasonable play in its joints as necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. It is for the government to decide as to how, when where and why a particular person is required to be posed so long as the transfer has been effected in public interest after taking into consideration the public interest as a paramount consideration, it has unfettered power to effect the transfer, subject of-course to certain disciplines. It is for the government to decide as to how, when where and why a particular person is required to be posed so long as the transfer has been effected in public interest after taking into consideration the public interest as a paramount consideration, it has unfettered power to effect the transfer, subject of-course to certain disciplines. It is for the State to decide as to how, when, where and why a particular employee is required to be posted so long, as this exercise is undertaken after taking into consideration the administrative exigencies and public interest. 6. Having observed as above certain binding precedents on the subject may be noticed. In E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. 7. In Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and other, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held to the extent that even if the transfer orders have been passed in violation of executive instructions or orders even then courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order as this would amount to interference in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:- "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." 8. In Union of India and other vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was for the appropriate authority to decide as to who should and where he should be transferred and the court did not sit as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer and the court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. It was held:- "7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. It was held:- "7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. 8. The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in service matters. This is evident from a perusal of Article 323-A of the Constitution. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the more surprising that the learned single Member who passed the impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is thus aware of the norms and constraints of the writ jurisdiction). The Administrative Tribunal is not an Appellate Authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior Administrative Officer (competent authority)." 9. This position of law was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and other, (1995) 3 SCC 270 in the following terms:- The Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfer of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case we have seen that on the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place." 10. Thereafter this has been the settled position of law and repeatedly reiterated and restated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and other vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 214, Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and other, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash, (2001) 8 SCC 574 and Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104 and Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245 . 11. It is otherwise settled law that matters of transfer are purely administrative matters and the Courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and other vs. Kashmir Singh and another, (2010) 13 SCC 306 held as under:- "12. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the State authorities concerned which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The administrative authorities concerned may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their assessment of the law and order situation and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well settled that courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint, vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ." 12. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well settled that courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint, vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ." 12. The petitioner is School Managing committee and has no locus-standi to file this petition particularly when it has not chosen to approach the appropriate authorities. In no event can the petitioner seek the relief as claimed for in the writ petition since the matters of postings and transfers are essentially of an administrative nature. The courts will not ordinarily interfere and take over the reins of administration. 13. In State of U.P. and other vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of transfers, where Division Bench of Allahabad High Court after holding that there were disputed questions of fact involved as to whether the transfer orders were due to political pressure or not, went on to observe as under:- "Hence, in such cases it is better for the Government servant to approach the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, and this internal mechanism will be better for this purpose. The Chief Secretary is a very senior Government Officer with sufficient maturity and seniority to withstand political or other extraneous pressure and deal with the issue fairly and we are confident that he will do justice in the matter to civil servants. This will also avoid or reduce the floodgate of litigation of this nature in this Court. As regards Class-I Officers, the Civil Service Board shall be constituted for dealing with their transfers and postings (as already directed by us above)." 14. On the question of transfers, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that a challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders and it was further held that reasons for this was that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State. But what is relevant is the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to the courts interference with the orders of transfer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:- "9. But what is relevant is the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to the courts interference with the orders of transfer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:- "9. The very questions involved, as found noticed by the High Court in these cases, being disputed questions of facts, there was hardly any scope for the High Court to generalise the situations based on its own appreciation and understanding of the prevailing circumstances as disclosed from some write-ups in journals or newspaper reports, conditions of service or rights, which are personal to the parties concerned, are to be governed by rules as also the in-built powers of supervision and control in the hierarchy of the administration of State or any Authority as well as the basic concepts and well-recognised powers and jurisdiction inherent in the various authorities in the hierarchy. All that cannot be obliterated by sweeping observations and directions unmindful of the anarchy which it may create in ensuring an effective supervision and control and running of administration merely on certain assumed notions of orderliness expected from the authorities affecting transfers. Even as the position stands, avenues are open for being availed of by anyone aggrieved, with the concerned authorities, the Courts and Tribunals, as the case may be, to seek relief even in relation to an order of transfer or appointment or promotion or any order passed in disciplinary proceedings on certain well-settled and recognized grounds or reasons, when properly approached and sought to be vindicated in the manner known to and in accordance with law. No such generalised directions as have been given by the High Court could ever be given leaving room for an inevitable impression that the Courts are attempting to take over the reigns of executive administration. Attempting to undertake an exercise of the nature could even be assailed as an onslaught and encroachment on the respective fields or areas of jurisdiction earmarked for the various other limbs of the State. Giving room for such an impression should be avoided with utmost care and seriously and zealously Courts endeavour to safeguard the rights of parties." 15. Attempting to undertake an exercise of the nature could even be assailed as an onslaught and encroachment on the respective fields or areas of jurisdiction earmarked for the various other limbs of the State. Giving room for such an impression should be avoided with utmost care and seriously and zealously Courts endeavour to safeguard the rights of parties." 15. In case the submissions of the petitioner are tested on the touchstone of exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, then the petitioner has nothing much to say, since the matters of posting and transfer are matters of administrative policy, where the courts should be loathe to interfere. The courts and tribunals, as warned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, are not appellate forums to decide on the question of transfers and postings and therefore the writ petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner would have been well advised to approach the higher authorities rather than rushing to this court. 16. For all the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.