ORDER : This writ petition has been filed by A.Palaniraj, challenging the impugned transfer order passed by the first respondent, the Principal Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest (FR-1) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 09, in by which, the petitioner/Mr.A.Palani Raj Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Protection Squad, Virudhungar has been deputed to Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited and posted as Divisional Manager, Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Nagercoil in the existing vacancy on administrative grounds. 2. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order it has been inter aliacontended that the impugned transfer order has been passed with mala fide intention under the guise of administrative reason, however, there is no material to show that the impugned order has been passed with genuine administrative ground. 3. Mr.G.R.Swaminthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Forester in the year 1982. On completion of 20 years of service, he was promoted as Forest Range Officer in the year 2008 and he was placed at Srivilliputhur Range on 10.03.2010. He has been promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forest in the year 2014 vide G.O.(D)No.213, Environment and Forest (FR-1) Department dated 15.07.2014. While he was discharging his duties without giving any room for complaint, he was selected for receiving Indhira Priadarshini Vrishamitra Award in the year 2010 for his outstanding contributions. While he was working as a Forest Range Officer, he submitted a report regarding the illegal function of Saw mills. Only based on the report, action was taken. Due to the aforesaid actions, he was transferred to Forest Academy Coimbatore. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the same in W.P(MD)No.16080 of 2012 and this Court, by an order dated 03.09.2013, finding malafide, set aside the transfer order and allowed the writ petition. As per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, within one kilometer from the sanctuary, no mining operations shall be permitted. Based on the complaint given by one Murugan, the petitioner conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the second respondent and his report was also accepted and direction was issued to the Forest Ranger, Virudhunagar Region by the second respondent. Based on the complaint given by one Murugan, the petitioner conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the second respondent and his report was also accepted and direction was issued to the Forest Ranger, Virudhunagar Region by the second respondent. That apart, when the Government sanctioned funds to construct percolation pond and check dam, the petitioner, after inspecting the site submitted a report pointing out several irregularities in constructing the said pond, thereafter, a public litigation petition was filed before this Court in W.P(MD)No. 14071 of 2015 relating to irregularities in the construction of percolation and check dam. The petitioner has been shown as third respondent in the said Writ Petition. Suddenly, the impugned order has been passed to avoid the petitioner to file a report before the Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed in the guise of administrative ground is liable to set aside, as there is no such administrative grounds found in the impugned transfer order. Further, he would submit that since the petitioner is working as Assistant Conservator of Forests, which comes under Group B, the transfer can be made only once in three year. While so, when the petitioner was appointed in the present place in the year 2014, before completion of three years, he cannot be transferred against their own transfer policy. 4. Refuting the above contentions, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that out of 33 years of total number of service in the Forest Department, the petitioner has spent almost 19 years in Virudhunagar Region alone. This apart, the petitioner was also transferred in the present place in 2010, then he also completed more than three years of time. Above all, the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited by way of proceedings dated 27.01.2015 informed the respondents that there are five post of Divisional Managers and one post of Vigilance Officer in the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests and out of these six posts, five posts are lying vacant. Besides through the said communication, the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited also requested the first respondent to sanction Divisional Manager posts to monitor all the activities in the field and further to improve production/protection and also to run the day-to-day administration of the corporation. In view of the administrative necessity, the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order. Besides through the said communication, the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited also requested the first respondent to sanction Divisional Manager posts to monitor all the activities in the field and further to improve production/protection and also to run the day-to-day administration of the corporation. In view of the administrative necessity, the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order. Therefore, the question of alleging mala fide in the impugned order of trasnfer, does not arise. 5. Continuing his arguments, the learned Additional Advocate General supporting the impugned order submitted that out of total number of 33 years of service rendered by the petitioner from the date of his appointment, when he has rendered almost 19 years of service in the Virudhunagar Region, having come to the present place on 10.03.2010, he has completed more than 5 years in the present place, therefore, when he was allowed to function in the same Region for about 19 long years, attributing malafideon the ground that only to avoid the petitioner, who has been arrayed as third respondent in the pending Public Litigation Petition in W.P(MD)No.14071 of 2015, he has been shifted out from the present place is again unfounded. The learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the notice of this Court to the proceedings dated 02.08.2011 to say that the petitioner is taking help of one E.Ravikumar aged 34 years, against whom several forest cases have been registered. While so, the petitioner has allowed the said Ravikumar to come with official dress in the guise of deducting forest offences, as this has caused some dissatisfaction among the forest officials and staffs, Tamil Nadu Forest Officers Association has also made a complaint rasing serious objection for taking Mr.E.Ravikumar along with the forest official inside the forest. Although the respondents have not adverted to all these things, without giving any weightage to the said complaint, the present transfer order has been passed only on the administrative grounds in response to a request received from the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited vide letter dated 27.01.2015 seeking at least three Assistant Conservator of Forests to be deputed to the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited so as to monitor the day-to-day activities of production/protection. Therefore, when the first respondent has passed the present impugned order in response to the request received from the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited dated 27.01.2015, it is far from acceptance to say that the petitioner has been shifted out from the present place out of malice. Again placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 , he further contended that in the matter of transfer, the issue has been repeatedly settled once and for all holding that the Court should not interfere with the transfer orders, which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatary statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. Further, he would submit that in the very same Judgment the Apex Court has further held that the Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Therefore, the transfer orders issued by the competent authority so long as does not violate any of the legal rights the petitioner, no writ will lie. 6. Continuing his reply, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that it is also far from acceptance to say that the transfer has been effected in order to prevent the petitioner from filing his detailed counter pending public litigation petition in W.P(MD)No.14071 of 2015. Inasmuch as in the said PIL, not only the petitioner has been made as third respondent, on behalf of the Forest Department other official respondents are also arrayed as necessary parties, therefore, it is not incumbent upon the petitioner, who is only arrayed as third respondent, in the pending PIL can contend that in order to avoid filing counter affidavit, the petitioner has been transferred out from the present place, when the other respondents 1 and 2 in the pending PIL, can also file a detailed counter. 7. Heard both sides. 8. As a matter of fact the petitioner who was appointed as Forester in the year 1982, after completing 25 years of service, came to be promoted as Forest Range Officer in the year 2008 and subsequently, he was placed at Virudhunagar Range on 10.03.2010. 7. Heard both sides. 8. As a matter of fact the petitioner who was appointed as Forester in the year 1982, after completing 25 years of service, came to be promoted as Forest Range Officer in the year 2008 and subsequently, he was placed at Virudhunagar Range on 10.03.2010. No doubt, he was also conferred with Indhira Priadarshini Vrishamitra Award in the year 2010 for his contribution made in the field from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. But one another fact remains to be seen is when the petitioner, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, has rendered 19 years of service in virudhunagar Range, out of total 33 years of service in the Forest Department, in the light of a request from the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited dated 27.01.2015, the Second respondent agreeing with the request made by the Aruasu Rubber Corporation Limited to monitor all the activities in the filed to improve the production/protection and also to run the day-to-day administration of the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, rightly thought fit to bring the petitioner to the Arasu Rubber Corporation may be for the reason that he was also one of the awardees of Indhira Priadarshini Vrishamitra Award conferred by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest who can do better in the transferred place. This apart, the petitioner, having come to the present place by transfer on 10.03.2010, has completed more than 3 years, therefore, this Court is not able to see any error or infirmity in the impugned order. In an identical circumstances, when a similar issue came before me in W.P(MD).No14928 of 2011 following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1991 SC 532 (cited supra), I have held as follows: “ 9. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 532 has categorically held that where a competent authority issues transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered with by the Court merely because the transfer orders were passed on the request of the employees concerned. The relevant portion is also extracted hereunder: “ 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 of on the ground of mala fide. A Government Servant holding transferable post has not vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place or the other. Transfer order 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 Court ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department” 10. When the dictum of the Apex Court is very clear that the Courts shall not interfere with the transfer order made in public interest or for administrative reason, I am unable to see any merit in this petition.” 9. This apart, in yet another Judgement in Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others reported in (2009)3 MLJ 727 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while reiterating the settled legal position that an order of transfer is an administrative order and that the transfer order, which is ordinarily an incident of service has vividly held that any transfer order passed on administrative reason should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. In the present case on hand, in the light of the request made by the Arasu Rubber Corporation in its proceedings dated 27.01.2015 requesting the first respondent to sanction Divisional Manager posts to monitor all the activities in the field and further to improve production/protection of the rubber corporation, transferring the petitioner on administrative ground cannot be assailed. In this context, it will be useful to refer another judgment of the Apex Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 , wherein it has been held as follows:- “4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order 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 mala fide. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order 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 mala fide. 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 over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. 10. When the above dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court is very clear that the court shall not ordinarily interfere with the transfer order made in the public interest for administrative reason, again, I do not wish to interfere with impugned order, hence, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.