Order : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the transfer order on the ground that unless there is a compliant, the petitioner could not be transferred in view of the transfer policy dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure P/4). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clause – 8 of the policy is to be read in a manner to mean that transfer of Panchayat Karmi is permissible only on the ground of complaint or on his own request or in administrative exigency. It is further submitted that earlier, this Court had directed for consideration of case in the light of the policy of transfer, but the respondents have not considered anything and rejected the representation mechanically. It is next contended that the order of transfer was passed by the Deputy Director, whereas under the policy, transfers are required to be made by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. No other ground was urged. 3. A comprehensive policy has been framed in respect of Panchayat Karmi service conditions vide Circular dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure P/4). This is an administrative policy which contains policy of transfer also as embodied in para 8 of the circular. The relevant provision reads as below : **8- LFkkukUrj.k %& iapk;rdfeZ;ksa dk LFkkukUrj.k iz'kklfud ,oa LoSfPNd vk/kkj ij ftys ds Hkhrj fd;s tk ldsaxs A xzke iapk;rksa dh f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij leqfpr tkap mijkar vko';d gksus ij eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r dh vuq'kalk ij eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r }kjk iapk;r dfeZ;ksa dk LFkkukarj.k fd;k tk ldsxk A LoSfPNd LFkkukarj.k Hkh tuin iapk;r dh vuq'kalk ij eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r }kjk fd;s tk ldsaxs A** 4. The opening sentence of this clause clearly provides transfer both on administrative grounds as well as on the request of of the Panchayat Karmi. The transfer policy also lays down the procedure to be followed in case, transfer is sought to be made on complaint, which could be one of the exigency of administration. That, however, does not mean that the transfer is not permissible on any other exigencies of service. To say that the only exigency of service, in which, transfer could be effected is complaint, is not found anyway in the policy. Transfer is an incident of service, which could be done in administrative exigency and in public interest. There cannot be a straight-jacket formula of public interest. To say that the only exigency of service, in which, transfer could be effected is complaint, is not found anyway in the policy. Transfer is an incident of service, which could be done in administrative exigency and in public interest. There cannot be a straight-jacket formula of public interest. Complaint, certainly is one of the exigency, in which, an employee can be transferred. However, there are other exigencies which are not exhaustive, for which, an employee can be subjected to transfer. Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly held in catena of decisions that transfer is only an incident of service, it does not affect any of the terms and conditions of the service. Unless the Statutory Rules, terms and conditions of appointment or a clear administrative policy restrict transfer, transfer is an incident of service and every service is transferable unless otherwise provided in the manner referred to herein above. 5. It is not the case of the petitioner that there were certain false complaints made and acting mechanically on those complaints, without holding any inquiry and verifying in the manner prescribed in the policy, the petitioner was subjected to transfer. 6. The transfer order shows that the transfer was in exigency of service. Transfer is merely an administrative order and not a statutory document which is required to contain detailed reasons of administrative exigency. It is sufficient that the order records that the order is in public interest or in administrative exigency. The occasion to go behind an order would arise only when an order is assailed on serious allegations of malafide i.e. malice in fact and not otherwise. 7. The other ground of challenge to the transfer order is that order has been issued by the Deputy Director whereas under the policy, transfers are required to be made by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. 8. It is to be borne in mind that order of transfer is not a statutory exercise that it require issuance by the competent authority only. The transfer order clearly records that the order has been passed by Deputy Director as per the direction of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is sufficient compliance of the policy requirement. 10. The transfer order clearly records that the order has been passed by Deputy Director as per the direction of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is sufficient compliance of the policy requirement. 10. There is no other specific ground raised in the petition to challenge the order on the ground that it is so arbitrary or causing severe hardship that the Writ Court should come to the aid to the petition in the matter of administrative orders like transfer of an employee. 11. In view of the above, no ground of interference with the order impugned is made out. 12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.