ORDER : 1. The petitioner present in person, is aggrieved of the order dated 23rd March, 2018, transferring him from Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short ‘Commission’) to District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jaisalmer. 2. Briefly, the essential skeletal materials are that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV Employee at Jaipur, in the year 1994 and has continued at the same place i.e. Jaipur, for last 24 years. By impugned order dated 23rd March, 2018, as many as six employees, including the petitioner, were transferred from different places. 3. Petitioner submits that aggrieved of the order of transfer, he instituted an appeal before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘Tribunal’), by way of an Appeal No. 289/2018, which was disposed off on 26th March, 2018, with a direction to the respondent-Commission. A representation addressed by the petitioner in consequence thereof has been declined by the respondent-Commission in a mechanical manner without application of note. On another appeal instituted before the Tribunal has again been disposed off vide order dated 26th April, 2018, relegating the petitioner again to address a representation which shall be considered sympathetically, in the light of various circulars of the State Government specifically with reference to low paid employees to be retained at their parent district while the staying the execution transfer order on 25th May, 2018. 4. Heard and considered. 5. The representation addressed for the second time as has been declined vide order dated 25th May, 2018, which is the subject matter of the challenge before this Court. 6. The only grievance put-forth by the petitioner before this Court is his son and four daughters, who are of marriageable age, and therefore, he ought to have been retained at Jaipur. No other point was raised for consideration of this Court. 7. By catena of judgments, it is well settled that transfer is an incident of service. Unless transfer is affected in violation of any mandatory statutory rules or having adverse consequences on the conditions of the service; same is not to be interfered by the Courts as an Appellate Authority. 8. 7. By catena of judgments, it is well settled that transfer is an incident of service. Unless transfer is affected in violation of any mandatory statutory rules or having adverse consequences on the conditions of the service; same is not to be interfered by the Courts as an Appellate Authority. 8. In the case of Gobardhan Lal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 11 SCC 402 , the Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms observed thus: “(7) It is too late in the day for any Government Servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala-fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala-fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala-fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. (8) A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala-fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.” 9. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid and in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court of the land in the matter of transfer, with reference to limited scope; this Court is not inclined to interfere with the transfer order made by Competent Authority. 10. In the result, the writ application fails and is hereby dismissed.