JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by Union of India (Ministry of Water Resources) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (for short called "The Tribunal") in O.A. No. 387 of 2013. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein and quashed the transfer order of respondent from Silchar to Guwahati. 2. So the short question, which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A. filed by respondent and in consequence was justified in setting aside his transfer order dated 2.12.2013 passed by the petitioner by which he was transferred to Guwahati from Silchar? 3. The respondent is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Brahmaputra Board, a statutory authority of Central Government and is posted at Silchar (Barak Valley Division). By the transfer order dated 02.12.2013 issued by the petitioners, he was transferred to Guwahati from Silchar. He was not satisfied with his transfer order and hence feeling aggrieved filed the aforesaid O.A. out of which, this writ petition arises. The respondent impugned his transfer order contending inter alia that firstly, no case was made out for his transfer, secondly, it was malafide in nature and hence liable to be set aside. 4. The Tribunal did not find any merit in any of the contentions urged by the respondent in his OA and yet interfered in the impugned transfer order and while setting aside the transfer order, directed the petitioners to modify the transfer order of the respondent and transfer him to any other place other than "Guwahati" or "Brahmaputra Valley". 5. This is what was held by the Tribunal in the concluding para of the impugned order: By taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case as well as condition incorporated in the Brahmaputra Board, we are of the view that the transfer order dated 02.12.2013 so far the applicant is concerned needs to be modified by the authority who is alone best suited judge as to the existence of exigency of such service. Accordingly, we direct the respondent authority to modify the transfer order dated 02.12.2013 so far the applicant is concerned by giving posting him in any place of Brahmaputra Board else that Guwahati or Brahmaputra Valley for the time being. Accordingly, we direct the respondent authority to modify the transfer order dated 02.12.2013 so far the applicant is concerned by giving posting him in any place of Brahmaputra Board else that Guwahati or Brahmaputra Valley for the time being. The said exercise shall have to be carried out within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till then, applicant may be allowed to discharge his duties at Silchar, Brahmaputra Board. 6. It is against this order the respondent of O.A. (Union of India - Ministry of Water Resources) has felt aggrieved and filed this writ petition. 7. Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the writ petition and while setting aside the impugned order, dismiss the OA filed by respondent out of which this writ petition arises and in turn uphold the transfer order dated 2.12.2013 as being legal and proper. 9. At the outset, we may take note of certain well-settled principles, which govern the cases relating to transfer of an employee in service jurisprudence. 10. The transfer of any employee from "A" place to "B" by his employer is always regarded as an incidence of his service condition. Indeed, it is inherent in his service conditions. It is the right of an employer to transfer his/her employees to any place depending upon the exigencies, requirements and need etc. No employee can legally assert that he has a right to remain at a particular place for all his service tenure or only to remain at a place of his choice, if transferred. It is, therefore, always regarded as an administrative decision on the part of an employer, while ordering transfer of any particular employee or particular set of employees to a particular place. 11. This right cannot be challenged by an employee. In other words, only because an employee is asked to go to a place, which may or may not be of his liking would not be a ground to seek judicial protection against such order. 11. This right cannot be challenged by an employee. In other words, only because an employee is asked to go to a place, which may or may not be of his liking would not be a ground to seek judicial protection against such order. In other words such action on the part of an employer cannot be made subject matter of judicial scrutiny in writ jurisdiction, nor does it give rise to any cause of action to successfully assail in Court on the well-settled parameters, judicially recognized by Courts. 12. However, there are certain well-defined exceptions carved out by judicial precedents as to under what circumstances, the writ court or to say any Court is competent to examine the legality and correctness of any transfer order. These exceptions broadly are - if the transfer order is issued by a competent authority with some definite malice against the employee or when it is found to have been issued against any statutory provisions, which govern such transfer, or when it is found to be ex facie arbitrary, or is issued by a person not competent to issue such order, or when it is found to be contrary to terms of service condition or/and any statutory policy etc. These are usually the grounds, which are made basis to examine the legality and correctness of transfer order on judicial side. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle in consideration, when we examine the facts of the case in hand then we find that the Tribunal was not right in interfering in the transfer order passed by the petitioners transferring him from Silchar (Barak Valley Division) to Guwahati. 14. In our view, there was no ground made out for its setting aside. In the first place, it was an order passed purely on administrative side by the petitioners. Secondly, the very fact that respondent was posted at Silchar for more than 22 years was a ground to transfer him to another place because usually a Government servant does not remain posted at one place for such a long period (22 years). Thirdly, the so-called ground of malafides pleaded by the respondent were no ground at all and in any event, all were held not made out by Tribunal on facts. 15. Thirdly, the so-called ground of malafides pleaded by the respondent were no ground at all and in any event, all were held not made out by Tribunal on facts. 15. In the light of findings recorded by the Tribunal, there was no reason for the Tribunal to then interfere in the impugned transfer order and with the findings recorded, it should have been upheld instead of it being set aside. We cannot therefore concur with the conclusion of Tribunal which deserves to be reversed. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent reiterated his submissions on the ground of malafides which he had taken in the OA before the Tribunal. As observed supra those grounds were repelled by the Tribunal finding no merit therein and in our view rightly. The respondent, however, did not challenge those findings by filing any writ as such. 17. Be that as it may, on perusal of the so-called allegations of malafides, we are constrained to say that those have absolutely no basis or foundation. They seem to have been made only for the sake of making. 18. Indeed, only because the respondent claimed to have made complaint against some officers of the Board would not be a ground to allow him to continue at one place on the ground of some kind of apprehension or danger to his life. It is pertinent to note that respondent too is facing some serious charges of corruption. 19. We, however, express no opinion on these issues because they are neither relevant for deciding the legality of his transfer order nor relevant to assail the transfer order. In short, this submission of learned counsel for respondent has no merit and hence rejected. 20. As a result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and in consequence, the OA filed by the respondent is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the transfer order dated 2.12.2013 impugned in OA is held legal and proper. 21. The respondent is granted 2 weeks time to join the place of posting in terms of the transfer order dated 2.12.2013. No cost. Petition allowed.