ORDER : 1. The petitioner has assailed the correctness and legality of order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.7684/2016 quashing the order dated 20.08.2016 at Annexure A-4 in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the 5th respondent Mr. Vijayakumar M. Loni. The facts of the case briefly are as follows: The petitioner and the 5th respondent are working in the Department of Women and Child Welfare. By virtue of order dated 24-08-2015, Annexure A-1, the petitioner was transferred to Hungund from Badami, and the 5th respondent was transferred from Hungund to Badami. It appears that the petitioner made a request to the Director of Department of Women and Child Development seeking transfer to Badami again putting forth the ground that he had only 22 months of service to retire. Considering this request, the Director of Department of Women and Child effected transfer on 20.08.2016 as per, Annexure A-4, according to which the petitioner was transferred from Hungund to Badami and the 5th respondent was transferred from Badami to Hungund. This order dated 20.08.2016 was assailed by 5th respondent by preferring an application to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The 5th respondent contended before the tribunal that he had not yet completed four years of tenure at Badami as he was transferred to that place on 24.08.2015 and therefore his transfer to Hungund from Badami was against the transfer guidelines. Upholding his stand, the tribunal quashed the transfer order dated 20-08-2016. So aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this court. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the 5th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had to make a request to transfer him to Badami as he had some family problems and that he had only 22 months to retire. If the petitioner’s request was considered by the Director of the Department of Women and Child Development, there is nothing illegality in it and the interest of the 5th respondent will not be affected in any way. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that there is no rule as such that an employee should retire in a place of his choice. The 5th respondent was transferred to Badami only on 24.08.2015. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that there is no rule as such that an employee should retire in a place of his choice. The 5th respondent was transferred to Badami only on 24.08.2015. The premature transfer affects his interest; even public interest was not involved in effecting this transfer. The Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter in quashing the order of transfer dated: 20-08-2016; he supports for sustaining the impugned order. 4. Having heard both sides, it is to be now stated 5th that there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was transferred to Badami only on 24.08.2015 and that he has not yet completed his complete tenure at that place. Equally it is also true that the petitioner is left with only 22 months to attain the age of superannuation. Only for the reason that the petitioner is going to retire within 22 months, it cannot be a good ground to transfer him to Badami in order to accommodate him to retire at place of his choice. This order dated 20.08.2016 passed by the Director of Department of Women and Child i.e., respondent No.2 in this writ petition is clearly against the transfer guidelines. If the tribunal has come to the opinion that transfer thus made by the Director is against transfer policy and guidelines, there is nothing illegality in it and therefore we do not find any good ground in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.