JUDGMENT : S. N. PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India having been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.3698(C) of 2015 is under challenge whereby and where under the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order of transfer dated 12.6.2015. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner in challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 12.6.2015 is that she has been transferred only in order to accommodate the opposite party no.7. She has taken ground that she is an unmarried lady and looking after her old ailing parents who are suffering from various ailment. The opposite party-State has defended the order by submitting that there is no infirmity in the order impugned as because the petitioner was working for last three years in Balasore and the order of transfer has been issued on administrative ground since she has created unpleasant situation for which an enquiry was conducted and thereafter she has been transferred from that place on administrative reason. So far as question of respondent no.7 is concerned, she has been posted on compassionate ground as she is a physically disabled person having 65% disability and she has lost her brother who laws suffering from cardiac and kidney problem. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. The issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is regarding her transfer by which she has been transferred from Balasore where she was working as Tutor in A.N.M. Training, Balasore to Sundargarh against vacant post and in her place one Smt.Banaja Basini Samal has been posted. The contention raised by the petitioner that she has been victimized only in order to accommodate the opposite party no.7 and as such the order of transfer is perverse, illegal, hence is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. It is settled that transfer is an incidence of service and an employee has got no right to be posted in her/his place of choice. Government is the best judge to see that which employee to be posted at which place. 4. It is settled that transfer is an incidence of service and an employee has got no right to be posted in her/his place of choice. Government is the best judge to see that which employee to be posted at which place. It is also settled that order of transfer is subject to interference by court of law only in case the order having been passed by authority who has got no jurisdiction or contrary to the statutory rule or by way of mala fide intention. 5. So far as the facts of this case is concerned, admittedly the petitioner was posted as Tutor in A.N.M. Training, Balasore for more than three years in Balasore, while she was there, one enquiry was conducted regarding her involvement in some activities which has created unpleasant situation in discharging day to day duty. Enquiry Officer has suggested for her transfer. The competent authority without taking any action departmentally has transferred her on administrative ground. The petitioner has admitted the fact that she has remained at Balasore for last three years. The normal procedure of transfer in the State is that an officer is transferred if she/he has completed at least three years of service in a particular place. The petitioner has not alleged any mala fide against the authority or even not made out a case that the order of transfer is without any jurisdiction or against statutory rule or guideline formulated by the State Government. 6. So far as the contention that the respondent no.7 has been posted in her place and as such the order of transfer dated 12.6.2015 is only to accommodate the respondentno.7 but that is not the situation in the instant case as because, admittedly the petitioner was continuing since last three years and on administrative ground she has been transferred. The opposite party no.7 has also made representation for her transfer to Balasore on the ground that she is a physically disabled person having 65% disability and she has lost her brother and taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter her posting was considered by the authority purely on compassionate ground as such she was posted in place of the petitioner. 7. 7. We are of the considered view that only on the ground of posting of the respondent no.7 in place of the petitioner, the order of transfer issued against the petitioner, cannot be said to be illegal reason being that the order of transfer of the petitioner is on administrative ground and for smooth functioning of the office, hence in the facts and circumstance of the case, Government has taken decision to transfer the petitioner so that there may be congenial atmosphere in functioning of the office. In view thereof and taking into consideration the fact that the order of transfer can only be interfered in a situation like that if the order is without jurisdiction or contrary to the statutory rule or it is by way of mala fide exercise but the petitioner has not made out any case in this line, hence we are not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer or the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal, hence we decline to interfere with the same. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.