JUDGMENT : Jyothindranath, J. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is working as Senior Section Engineer (Electrical) at Kottayam under Southern Railway. He was originally transferred from Kottayam to Thiruvananthapuram. Against the said order, the petitioner herein moved before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.180/00542/2015. The said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal by its order dated 1.10.2015 with a direction to consider a representation dated 17.7.2015. The said representation was favourably considered by the Railway by its order dated 27.11.2015, whereby, petitioner was allowed to continue at Kottayam till 30.04.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.180/00349/2016, aggrieved by the order of the third respondent. The said original application was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 3.1.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed. 2. When the petition came up for admission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that the petitioner is a Senior Section Engineer and the cadres of Junior Engineers/Section Engineers/Senior Section Engineers are controlled by the head quarters and the cadre controlling authority is the second respondent, who is the head of the department. In this case, the transfer is ordered not by the head quarters but by the Divisional Personnel Officer who is only a senior scale officer who is not competent to transfer a person in the cadre to which the petitioner belongs. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted before us that the post held by the petitioner herein is not included in the Sensitive Categories circulated by the Railway Board in terms of its letter bearing RBE No.244/89 dated 27.09.1989. As such, the post held by the petitioner is not subject to periodical transfer. Thirdly the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the formalities required for effecting a transfer was not followed in this case. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Railway submitted before us that, in this case, earlier the petitioner filed O.A.No.180/00542/2015. The said application was disposed of with a direction. In compliance with the direction the representation filed by the petitioner was considered and orders were passed. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Railway submitted before us that, in this case, earlier the petitioner filed O.A.No.180/00542/2015. The said application was disposed of with a direction. In compliance with the direction the representation filed by the petitioner was considered and orders were passed. The grievance of the petitioner at that point of time was that petitioner's elder daughter was facing her board examination (10th standard), her academic year having commenced with effect from 01.04.2015 a transfer in the middle of the academic year would have far reaching consequences upon her performance and educational standards." Considering the said representation, an order was passed stating that "having considered the representation given by Sri. Mathew Joseph in respect of his pressing requirement to remain at Kottayam till the end of academic year 2015-2016, I hereby order to keep his transfer order to Trivandrum in abeyance till 30th April, 2016." Thereafter, again the petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking the very same relief. 4. The above original petition has been filed on the ground that the transfer order Ext.A1 annexed to the original petition as well as Ext.A15 order bearing No.V/P OS 180/00542/2015/82 dated 27.11.2015 are without jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioner is that without proper application of mind, the Tribunal disposed of the application. In this case, as already stated, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authority who issued the transfer order is lacking jurisdiction. Another aspect highlighted is that since the category to which the petitioner belongs is not a sensitive post, periodical transfer is not applicable. Thirdly, the formalities are not complied with. The Tribunal in its order considered the above aspect in paragraph 12 and 13 of its order. Even though these points are not specifically highlighted, it can be seen that the case of the petitioner is seen dealt with by the Tribunal in the above paragraphs. For convenience, paragraphs 12 and 13 are quoted below : "12. Transfer is an incident of government service and applicant was allowed retention in posting station till his daughter's academic year 2015-2016, and once the allowed period is over, he ought to have carried out the order of transfer. One would expect an officer to be more reasonable. He is expected to abide by the statement made earlier. The excuse of education cannot be argued again and again. One would expect an officer to be more reasonable. He is expected to abide by the statement made earlier. The excuse of education cannot be argued again and again. Annexure A1 transfer order was issued after duly following the provisions of transfer and after obtaining approval of the Additional Divisional Railway Manager on the recommendations of the Placement Committee. Hence applicant's challenge of violation of procedure is unsustainable. 13. Who should be transferred and where should be transferred is a matter to be decided by the appropriate administrative authority. Unless an order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or made in violation of any statutory provisions, the interference of Tribunal is not warranted. Applicant has been given one opportunity by the Tribunal to make a representation with respect to his transfer. Having availed this opportunity and having provided relief, applicant cannot reagitate the same again. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at one place or a place of choice. Administrative exigencies have also to be considered. Transfer is an incident inherent in the service conditions in a department which meets the travel needs across the length and breadth of the country. Insistence on posting in a particular place or for so long as one desires, is not a legal right. He has no vested right." 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not considered the case presented before it to the effect that the transfer was ordered by an authority not competent to order a transfer. In this regard, in support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tyagi v. Union of India and others (1994 SCC(L&S) 562). The dictum laid down therein is that the transfer order issued by a subordinate authority having no delegated power at that time was invalid and nonest. The learned counsel also brought to our notice the decision in Ramadhar Pandey v. State of U.P. And others (1993 SCC (L&S) 918), wherein it is held that in the absence of material on record to show the transfer to be in public interest, such transfer is unsustainable. The learned counsel also brought to our notice the decision in Ramadhar Pandey v. State of U.P. And others (1993 SCC (L&S) 918), wherein it is held that in the absence of material on record to show the transfer to be in public interest, such transfer is unsustainable. In this case, it is brought to our notice that as per Annexure A7, the Extract of Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I, the delegation made by president with reference to rule 103(11), the power to transfer a railway servant from one post to another is vested upon 1) all heads of department (2) General Managers and Divisional Railway Managers in respect of a case like the petitioner. In the case of power vested on a Senior Scale Officer is only in respect of group C and Group D post under their control. 6. It is the submission made before us that as per the impugned transfer order Annexure A1 in Ext.P2, he was transferred and the transfer order is signed by the Assistant Personnel Officer who is not a competent person. The submission is that only the head of the department, subject to delegation to the Divisional Railway Manager can transfer the petitioner. After going through Annexure A7 as well as a Annexure A8, it can be seen that the transfer proposal was placed before the Placement Committee for recommendation and thereafter the approval of Additional Divisional Railway Manager obtained. This aspect is seen considered by the Tribunal while considering the submission of the counsel for the petitioner regarding the competency of the authority who issued the transfer order. No illegality or error is seen committed by the Tribunal on this regard. 7. The second aspect highlighted before us is that the petitioner is not coming under the category of Sensitive category and as such not subject to periodical transfer. In this regard, the stand taken by the railway is that it is a case where the officer is coming frequently in contact with contractors and suppliers as his post is Senior Section Engineer (electrical) at Kottayam. It is also relevant to note that since 2009, the petitioner herein is working as Senior Section Engineer (electrical) at Kottayam. As held by the Tribunal, a government servant has no vested right to remain posted at once place or a place of his choice. It is also relevant to note that since 2009, the petitioner herein is working as Senior Section Engineer (electrical) at Kottayam. As held by the Tribunal, a government servant has no vested right to remain posted at once place or a place of his choice. Acourt can interfere with a transfer only when it is shown that the transfer is vitiated by malafides or infraction of any norm or principle governing the transfer. 8. In this case as already stated, the petitioner was posted at Kottayam in 2009 and we are in 2017. More over, the railway got a positive case that he being the Senior Section Engineer (electrical), he is coming in contact with contractors and suppliers More over, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that all the transfer formalities are followed while ordering the transfer. It can be further seen that as per the direction of the Tribunal, in O.A.180/00542/2015, against petitioner's transfer from Kottayam to Thiruvananthapuram a favourable order was passed by the Railways and petitioner's transfer was kept in abeyance till 30th April 2016. The grievance of the petitioner was that a mid term transfer will adversely affect the studies of his daughter who was studying in 10th standard. That was considered by the Railway and transfer was ordered to keep in abeyance till 30.4.2016. After enjoying the said benefit, the petitioner approached the Tribunal saying that even the said order of keeping in abeyance is without authority. All these aspects were rightly considered by the Tribunal as highlighted above and there is no merit in the petition. Hence the original petition is dismissed.