JUDGMENT : 1. Going by the nature of relief sought for, petition is admitted to hearing and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, same is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner-lady is working as Tax Inspector in Municipal Committee, Banihal. Her husband-Maneer Ahmed was also working as Tax Inspector in Municipal Committee, Banihal. On 09.10.2017, respondent No. 2-Director Urban Local Bodies Department, Jammu issued transfer order dated09.10.2017 transferring the petitioner-lady from Municipal Committee, Banihal to Municipal Committee Ramban and her husband-Muneer Ahmad was transferred from Municipal Committee, Banihal and posted as Tax Inspector, Municipal Committee, Doda. In view of her family constrains i.e. pleading that current educational session of her daughter is in its last leg and final examination are likely to take place, petitioner and her husband-Muneer Ahmed approached this Court by way of SWP No. 2554/2017, which came to be disposed of on 24.10.2017 directing respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2017. The said representation was considered and order dated 06.11.2017 was passed by Director, Urban Local Bodies, Jammu modifying the earlier transfer order dated 09.10.2017. The operative part of the order dated 06.11.2017 reads as follows:- “Whereas, in compliance to directions of the Hon’ble High Court dated 24.10.2017 passed in SWP No. 2554/2017, MP No. 1/2017 in the case of the petitioners the representation of the petitioners dated 11.10.2017 has been duly considered and taking a lenient view, as projected by the petitioners in their representations for the time being which cannot be perpetuated in future as a matter of right the transfer order dated 09.10.2017 of petitioner No. 2, namely Muneer Ahmad from MC, Doda is hereby modified to the extent that the said Tax Inspector is now posted in Municipal Committee, Batote instead of MC Doda as Tax Inspector against available vacancy. However, the petitioner No. 1 Shamshada Akhter Tax Inspector will continue to remain posted in MC Ramban in terms of transfer order dated 09.10.2017.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No. 2 has modified the transfer order dated 09.10.2017 to the extent that petitioner has been retained in Ramban and her husband has been transfer in Municipal Committee, Batote. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No. 2 has modified the transfer order dated 09.10.2017 to the extent that petitioner has been retained in Ramban and her husband has been transfer in Municipal Committee, Batote. It is stated that the said order of transfer has not mitigated the hardships of the petitioner and her husband, because their daughter is studying in 9th Class at Batote and, therefore, they have to take care of her together. 4. On a query, Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG states that the distance between Ramban to Banihal is 32Kms and distance between Ramban to Batote is 26 Kms. It is further stated that petitioner-lady and her husband-Muneer Ahmed remained at Banihal for a long number of years and this may lead to allegations of favoritism against the department concerned. The petitioner cannot challenge each and every order of transfer. She cannot as a matter of right plead that she should be retained at a particular station where she worked for a long number of years. The request goes against the service rules as well as the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2015(3) JKJ 398 (HC), Syed Hilal Ahamd and ors vs. State of J&K and ors. 5. In para 13 of the Full Bench decision, it was held as follows:- “It is also settled proposition of law that transfer is an incidence of service and a government servant is subject to order of transfer on administrative exigencies. A government servant cannot insist that he is entitled to continue in a particular station/post for a definite period. Inter-ference in the orders of transfer by the Courts are very limited i.e. only on three grounds orders of transfer can be interfered, namely, if the order of transfer is passed in violation of any statutory Rule, or on malafide reasons or by an incompetent authority.” 6. The objection raised by Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Sr. AAG is justified. There appears to be no good reason for the petitioner to seek modification of the revised transfer order. The transfer order is not challenged on account of infraction of law. No further indulgence can be shown. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merits is, accordingly, dismissed.