Order : Raising a grievance against his transfer vide Notification dated 29.06.2016, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the Jharkhand Animal Husbandry Services (Recruitment, Promotion & Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2013 submits that the petitioner, who has been given Grade Pay of Rs.7600/-, by virtue of the transfer order would now be working on a post which is lower in rank. It is contended that the transfer of the petitioner within 2 years is in breach of Resolution dated 21.11.2006 inasmuch as, normally an employee should be transferred only on completion of 3 years' tenure. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, opposing the prayer in the writ-petition, submits that Notification dated 29.06.2016 has been issued in administrative exigencies and in larger public interest. 5. Under Rule 3.3, Touring Veterinary Officer and other equivalent posts have been treated in the entry cadre. The next promotional post is the post of Deputy Director and equivalent posts. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has yet not been promoted to the post of District Animal Husbandry Officer. May be, he is working on the said post and he has been placed in the Grade-Pay of Rs.7600/-, however, it would not change the fact that he is still in the entry cadre. Normally, the Courts would not interfere with the decision of the executives, transferring an employee from one place to another place unless the order of transfer is shown to be issued in breach of statutory rules or it is shown that it is actuated with malice in law. No employee can claim a vested right on a particular post or to a particular posting. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has failed to establish that the order of transfer vide Notification dated 29.06.2016 has been issued in breach of statutory provisions. No officer in his personal capacity has been made a party-respondent who alleged to have malice against the petitioner. In my opinion, Clause-2 to Resolution dated 21.11.2016 providing normal tenure of 3 years is directory and not mandatory. Transfer of as many as 126 persons through Notification dated 29.06.2016 indicates that the petitioner has not been singled out and transferred only after 2 years of his present posting. In my opinion, Clause-2 to Resolution dated 21.11.2016 providing normal tenure of 3 years is directory and not mandatory. Transfer of as many as 126 persons through Notification dated 29.06.2016 indicates that the petitioner has not been singled out and transferred only after 2 years of his present posting. As noticed in the connected writ-petitions, now, promotion to the eligible officers has been granted and they would be posted to appropriate places, soon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the anxiety of the petitioner is that now by virtue of his transfer the post, under National Animal Disease Reporting Scheme which he is presently holding, shall also fall vacant. In my opinion, anxiety of the petitioner is mis-placed. It should be the anxiety of the State. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, writ-petition is dismissed. However, it is indicated that on the posts which would soon fall vacant on account of posting of promoted officers, the petitioner, if possible may be posted to an appropriate place where he may not have to work under an officer junior to him. 7. The writ-petition stands dismissed, however, with the aforesaid direction.