ORDER : C. V. Sirpurkar, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 4-8-2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in Original Application No. 200/00543 of 2015, whereby the Tribunal had declined to interfere with the order dated 18-2-2015 passed by the Zonal Head, All India Radio, Bhopal transferring the petitioner Kalyan Ashish De, Lower Division Clerk, from Doordarshan Maintenance Centre (DDMC), Jabalpur, to High Power Transmission (HPT), T. V., Jabalpur. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he has been working as Lower Division Clerk in DDMC, Jabalpur since the year, 2006. His service record has been clean and unblemished. During the course of his working, petitioner had inquired into leave travel concession and medical reimbursement bills submitted by certain employees of DDMC. Pursuant to petitioner efforts and diligence, a huge amount disbursed to such employees on account of false bills submitted by them, was recovered. As a result, private respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 namely Ramesh Kachwaha, Accountant, Smt. Sangeeta Choudhary, Engineering Assistant and S. K. Jhariya, Stenographer, DDMC bore a grudge against the petitioner and started making false and frivolous complaints against him with the SC/ST Cell of the office. As a result of aforesaid false complaints, petitioner was transferred by Zonal Head of Prasar Bharti from DDMC to HPT T.V., Jabalpur, on 18-2-2015. The action of the respondent authorities in transferring the petitioner from DDMC to HPT, T.V., Jabalpur, was not based on any administrative exigency and thus, was arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and unfair. The transfer order had been issued upon the dictates and pressure of SC/ST Cell and smack of malice and bias against an honest employee, whose working in the interest of the State, had enraged corrupt employees. The petitioner challenged the order dated 18-2-2015 before the Administrative Tribunal; however, he has since, joined on the post to which he had been transferred. 3. The Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal has been opposed by the respondents on the grounds that the normal tenure of the petitioner was 4 years. He was appointed in DDMC, Jabalpur in the year, 2006. As such, he had completed his ordinary tenure of 4 years long ago. Moreover, he had been transferred from DDMC, Jabalpur to HPT, T.V., Jabalpur. He was appointed in DDMC, Jabalpur in the year, 2006. As such, he had completed his ordinary tenure of 4 years long ago. Moreover, he had been transferred from DDMC, Jabalpur to HPT, T.V., Jabalpur. Both the offices are located at Jabalpur in the same premises; thus, his transfer is more in the form of re-allocation of work. The petitioner did not make representation against his transfer to the competent authorities but impetuously rushed to the Tribunal. The petitioner was not transferred due to any complaint filed by the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 but was transferred on the ground of administrative exigencies as he had already completed his tenure. No employee has a vested right to continue in his post indefinitely. The private respondent Nos. 5 to 7 also filed replies to the effect that they did not make false or frivolous complaints against the petitioner. 4. Learned Tribunal dismissed the original application on the ground that transfer of a Government servant in a transferable service is not only necessary incident but a condition of the of the service career and no Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any particular place. It was further observed that the Court or Tribunal cannot sit in judgment upon the administrative exigencies existing in a particular establishment, which is best left to be judged by concerned authorities. Since, there were no imputations of mala fides use of power by the respondent authorities, no case was found by the Tribunal to interfere with the impugned order. For its findings, learned Tribunal relied upon judgments rendered by Supreme Court in the gases of State of U. P. v. Siyaram and anr., AIR 2004 SCC 4121, National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 , N. K. Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98 and State of M. P. v. S. S. Kourav, 1995(3) SCC 270 . Consequently, the original application was dismissed. 5. The impugned order has been challenged before this Court contending that learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case and the finding that the order of transfer was based upon the administrative exigencies and was not result of false and frivolous complaint; was palpably wrong. Consequently, the original application was dismissed. 5. The impugned order has been challenged before this Court contending that learned Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the facts of the case and the finding that the order of transfer was based upon the administrative exigencies and was not result of false and frivolous complaint; was palpably wrong. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the letter dated 13-5-2015 written by his immediate administrative superior, Avinash Durge, Deputy Director (Engineering) of Prasar Bharti DDMC, Jabalpur, whereby he has written to the Zonal Head that the allegations of propagating terror, disorder, chaos and insult based upon caste being levelled against the petitioner Kalyan Ashish De by certain employees, are based upon malice and have been false and baseless; therefore, Deputy Director had recommended to the Zonal Head that transfer of the petitioner be cancelled immediately in the interest of proper functioning of DDMC. The attention has also been invited to the order of transfer dated 18-2-2015, whereby 9 employees were transferred but only against the name of petitioner, it has been mentioned that he should be relieved immediately within three working days, without waiting for the substitute to join. It has also been contended that the copy of order has been marked to Director General of Prasar Bharti Doordarshan, New Delhi, who is not at all concerned with the transfer of the petitioner, which indicates that the external influences were at play in the transfer of the petitioner. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that the writ petition must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated : It is not in dispute that the normal tenure of a Lower Division Clerk in the concerned establishment is 4 years and the petitioner had already completed the same about 5 years ago. It is also not contested that both the offices i.e. DDMC, Jabalpur and HPT, T.V., Jabalpur, are located in the same premises. If the transfer had been made on the basis of complaints and had been punitive in nature or had been ordered in lieu of punishment, petitioner would have been transferred to a post which would have caused much greater hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. If the transfer had been made on the basis of complaints and had been punitive in nature or had been ordered in lieu of punishment, petitioner would have been transferred to a post which would have caused much greater hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. Simply because his immediate administrative superior, Deputy Director (Engineering) has recommended cancellation of the petitioner's transfer, does not give any right to the petitioner to have his transfer cancelled. Letter was written about 3 months after the transfer. If such recommendation was made, it was for the competent authority to consider the same. Likewise, the remark to relieve the petitioner without waiting for his successor to join can also not be considered to be indicative of malice because the same remark has also been made in respect of another employee namely Shri Naveen Kumar Tyagi, at serial No. 5 of the transfer order. The very question whether the transfer was based upon false and frivolous complaints, is a disputed question of facts; which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. 7. It is settled position of law that no Government servant can contend that once appointed to a particular post, he should continue to remain there for as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only the necessary incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicitly an essential condition of service, in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary in the law governing conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act of 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 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 us made in violation of any statutory provision. 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, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. 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. (Please see State of U. P. v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165 ). 8. The order of transfer dated 18-2-2015 passed in the case at hand, does not pass aforesaid tests; hence, challenge thereto must fail. 9. Consequently, this writ petition, being devoid of substance, is dismissed. C.C. as per rules.