JUDGMENT : This Intra Court Appeal has been filed by the petitioner/Ramesh Vaggan, who is working as Asst. Administrative Officer, in the respondent Life Insurance Corporation, aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition No. 205726/2015, by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 05.07.2016. 2. The grievance brought by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition was his transfer from Raichur to Bangalore and the transfer order dated 23.09.2015 at Annexure-A being contrary to the guidelines issued by the respondent-Corporation itself and since the appellant/petitioner belonged to SC category, the guidelines according to the learned counsel for the appellant protected the present appellant and prohibited his transfer from Raichur to Bangalore. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the guidelines in the form of Annexure-B dated 29.09.2014, which was initially applicable to SC/ST employees in class III and IV was extended to be applicable to the officers cadre also under the subsequent Circular dated 09.04.2015, which by clause 7 there of provided that the officers belonging to SC/ST category were also entitled to the similar protection as class III and IV officials under the Circular dated 29.09.2014. He urged that the impugned transfer order was therefore illegal and the deviation and departure from the guidelines by the respondent authority was without any reason and deserves to be interfered by this Court and therefore the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition and the present writ appeal deserves to be allowed, setting aside the impugned transfer order as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs N.R. Vairamani and Another in Appeal (Civil) No.7467/2003 and another judgment in the case of Mashooq Ahmad Vs Manager (Personnel & Industrial Relations), Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd., reported in 2001 LAB. I.C. 337. 4. Per contra, Sri Uday P. Honguntikar, the learned counsel for the respondent Life Insurance Corporation has vehemently opposed the submissions made at bar and has submitted before us that there is no breach of the guidelines by the respondent/Corporation while transferring the present appellant from Raichur to Bangalore as Asst. I.C. 337. 4. Per contra, Sri Uday P. Honguntikar, the learned counsel for the respondent Life Insurance Corporation has vehemently opposed the submissions made at bar and has submitted before us that there is no breach of the guidelines by the respondent/Corporation while transferring the present appellant from Raichur to Bangalore as Asst. Administrative Officer and he had spent almost 20 years of his employment with Life Insurance Corporation at Raichur near his home town at Gulbarga. Now he has been transferred to Bangalore not singling out him but while as many as 131 Asst. Administrative Officers were transferred from one place to another by respondent/Corporation vide separate orders of same date i.e. 23.09.2015. 5. He also urged that the guidelines formulated in the present case are applicable only to class III and IV employees and not to the officers cadre to which the petitioner belongs and there is no complete prohibition in the guidelines against the transfer of the present appellant belonging to SC category and who has taken two promotions from the original post of Stenographer to the post of Higher Grade Assistant and then to the post of Asst. Administrative Officer the cadre to which the present appellant belongs now. 6. He therefore submits that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition and the impugned transfer order deserves to be upheld. He has also relied upon the judgments in support of his contentions one in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Others Vs State of Bihar and Others reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, and another one in the case of Laxmi Narain Mehar Vs Union of India and others, by the Supreme Court and in the case of L.I.C SC/ST & NB Employees Welfare Association Vs L.I.C. of India in Writ Petition No. 29713/1995 decided on 24.04.1994 by Andhra Pradesh High Court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the material on record including the judgments cited at bar. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. Let us reproduce the guidelines of Annexure-B dated 29.09.2014. 7. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the material on record including the judgments cited at bar. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. Let us reproduce the guidelines of Annexure-B dated 29.09.2014. LIC LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE “YOGAKSHEMA” JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI – 400 021 Re: CO/Personnel/ER/A 29/09/2014 Circular No.: CO/Per/ERA/084/2014 ALL OFFICES OF THE CORPORATION Re: Transfers/Postings of SC/ST Employees Please refer to circulars ZD/703/ASP/89 dated 12/10/1989 and ZD/735/ASP/90 dated 05/11/1990 regarding transfer and posting of SC/ST employees in Class III and IV. Many a time, representations from SC/ST employees are received on their postings at far off places or to places of inconvenience. With a view to redress the grievances of the employees belonging to these communities and ensuring that they do not suffer any social discrimination as a result of their posing to certain places, the instructions of the said circulars are hereby reiterated as under:- (i) Due care and diligence should be exercised while deciding postings of SC/ST employees, both on recruitment as well as on promotion in view of the social disabilities they suffer from. To the extent possible, their posting should be considered near their native place. Any transfer request from SC/ST employee may be considered sympathetically. (ii) Care should be exercised to ensure that SC/ST employees are not subjected to discrimination on grounds of their social origin and are not placed at inconvenient places in unimportant positions. Liaison Officers for SC/ST employee should also observe that the transfers/postings of SC/ST employees are being done as per the laid down/available provisions. Keeping in view the office constraints. Executive Director (Personnel)” 9. The said Circular dated 29.09.2014 was apparently extended to the officers cadre also by Circular dated 09.04.2015, laying down the norms of transfer and postings2015-16, & the clause 7 of which reads as under; “Postings of SC/ST officers to be considered as per our letter dated 29.09.2014 so far as they do not suffer any social discrimination as a result of their posting to certain places”. 10. Therefore as far applicability of these norms for transfer and postings to the Asst. Administrative Officers are concerned, we are of the opinion that the said norms were applicable to the case of the present appellant/petitioner also. 11. 10. Therefore as far applicability of these norms for transfer and postings to the Asst. Administrative Officers are concerned, we are of the opinion that the said norms were applicable to the case of the present appellant/petitioner also. 11. On the other hand, on a careful analysis of the relevant guidelines and facts of the present case, we are fully satisfied that the impugned transfer of the appellant petitioner does not fall foul with the guidelines and on the contrary we are rather constrained to observe that the tenor and terms of these guidelines are rather over protective for the employees belonging to the SC/ST category. The only protection which was sought to be extended to SC/ST employees category of the Life Insurance Corporation in the Circulars was to avoid any social discrimination and disability or stigma, if they are sought to be transferred to a place where they are likely to suffer this kind of discrimination or disability. We are of the clear opinion that no such discrimination or inconvenience or even social disability can be imagined to be suffered or likely to be suffered by the appellant belonging to SC/ST category by his transfer from Raichur to Bangalore. On the contrary, we feel that a bigger and more developed city Bangalore, being the Capital of the State of Karnataka, should provide better opportunity not only to the petitioner but also to his family members to grow and develop more there. 12. A Cosmopolitan city like Bangalore, where as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that not only people from all over the country, but even from all over the world are attracted to come, one fails to understand how the petitioner would suffer any kind of inconvenience and social disability or discrimination by his transfer from Raichur to Bangalore. We are satisfied in the present case that the Corporation has not violated its own administrative guidelines for transfer and postings. 13. We are constrained to observe that clause 2 of the guidelines in Circular 29/09/2014 has gone to the extent of even saying that such SC/ST employees may not be posted at even inconvenient places in unimportant positions. This is nothing but spoon feeding and over protection extended to the under privileges section of the society, which is not the constitutional mandate. This is nothing but spoon feeding and over protection extended to the under privileges section of the society, which is not the constitutional mandate. We believe that the constitutional mandate for SC/ST category persons is to provide them protection and provide them opportunities to develop more with the general stream of people in the society on a Pan India perspective. These guidelines reflect the over supportive approach by a public body like Life Insurance Corporation, which has branches and operations thorough out the country and may be even outside the country. To lay down such norms in such a narrow perspective, which rather goes against the constitutional spirit rather than being in consonance with it. 14. As far as the legal position about the transfer and postings of employees is concerned, the law is well settled by a catena of judgments of various High Courts of the country and the Apex Court that a transfer being an incident of service and purely an administrative matter need not be interfered with by the Courts, unless in very exceptional and narrow circumstances like order suffering from malafides or in breach of the statutory norms etc. Nothing of this sort of exception exists in the present case, except the socalled deviation from the guidelines laid down by the respondent-Corporation, which also is not found to be there in the present case. 15. We are of the clear opinion that the guidelines do not have any statutory force and binding effect and cannot act as a straight jacket, never to be deviated by the concerned controlling authority of the respondent Corporation. The relevant extract from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation in the case of Shilpi Bose (supra) in paragraph No.4 of the judgment is found apt for being quoted herein below:- “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 malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to 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”. 16. On the other hand the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner do not help the present appellant/petitioner in any manner. The reliance placed in the Mashooq Ahmad’s case (supra) of the Allahabad High Court, which is quoted below, is rather misplaced. Paragraph No.9 of the judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is quoted hereunder:- “.…..No doubt it has been held in many cases that transfer is an exigency of service, but at the same time it must also be understood that no Government authority or instrumentality of the State can act arbitrarily, as arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution vide Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . Thus the principle that transfer is an exigency of service cannot be considered in isolation, but it must be read along with the equally important principle that every Government authority or instrumentality of the State (e.g. a public sector undertaking like the respondent) must act in a non-arbitrary manner. We cannot consider only the first principle and ignore the second one. In fact the second principle i.e. the principle that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution is a constitutional principle. Hence any transfer order which is arbitrary becomes illegal as it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution”. 17. We cannot consider only the first principle and ignore the second one. In fact the second principle i.e. the principle that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution is a constitutional principle. Hence any transfer order which is arbitrary becomes illegal as it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution”. 17. The principles evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mashooq Ahmed’s case (supra) about arbitrariness being antithesis of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India is all too fairly well settled principle and does not even call for a debate or a contrary opinion to that and we respectfully agree with the same but nonetheless, we find ourselves unable to apply these principles of the facts of the present case, as we do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in passing of the impugned transfer order on the part of the respondent/Corporation in the present case. 18. As far as the other judgment in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel relied upon the relevant portions, more so for principles of interpretation rather than as the law applicable for assailing the impugned transfer order. Relying upon the words of Lord Denning extracted in the said judgment are also quoted below for reference;- “The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.” 19. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to urge that since the appellant/petitioner was singled out for transferring him from Raichur to Bangalore and therefore since each case depends upon its own facts, in view of his peculiar facts, namely, viz. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to urge that since the appellant/petitioner was singled out for transferring him from Raichur to Bangalore and therefore since each case depends upon its own facts, in view of his peculiar facts, namely, viz. he is belonging to SC/ST category, having three female children and his wife to look after the children, we are afraid, these principles of interpretation can hardly be said to of any help to the appellant/petitioner for assailing the impugned transfer order. 20. While making the transfer of about 131 Asst. Administrative Officers, by common orders of the same day i.e. 23.09.2015 and a separate order passed for the petitioner, on the same day the appellant/petitioner cannot be said to have been singled out for being transferred from Raichur to Bangalore. Though we do not have the details of other officers in the said list of 131 Asst. Administrative Officers, whether some of them belonged to SC/ST category also or not, but some of them we find have been transferred to Bangalore also from the distant places. As already observed above, it is for the controlling authority in the respondent corporation to have the relevant data and details with them while passing the transfer and posting orders and it is not for the Court to undertake the exercise of dissection of those relevant details unless the relevant materials for establishing the narrow grounds of attacking such transfer orders are established like mala fides, breach of statutory guidelines etc. 21. The Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot enter into such a fishing and roving enquiry into the administration of the public bodies like respondent Life Insurance Corporation. We are supported by the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs S.S. Kourav and Others (2) reported in AIR 1995 SC 1056 , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “.. The courts or Tribunal are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative gourds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Court or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. The courts or Tribunal are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative gourds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Court or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decision shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. When, as in this case, the transfer order is issued on administrative grounds, the Court cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place…” 22. On an overall analysis of the facts and the legal position discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the challenge made to the impugned transfer order as well as to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is misconceived and deserves to be repelled. We find ourselves in full agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order before us of 05.07.2016 and the present intra Court appeal is found to be devoid of merit. The same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs.