ORDER 1. By this writ petition the petitioner who is working as Secretary, has challenged the order of transfer dated 30.8.2017 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sailana, District Ratlam to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Manasa, District Neemuch. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Secretary in B Class Manndi and by the impugned order he has been transferred to Manasa which is a ‘C’ Class Mandi. He further submits that the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfer and that the petitioner’s daughter is in Class 6th and her final exams are in the next month, therefore, the petitioner should be granted a limited relief till the end of the present academic session. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that no ground for interference in the impugned order of transfer is made out. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on the administrative ground and the petitioner has been transferred on the same post in the same pay scale, therefore, the service conditions of the petitioner is not adversely effected. That apart, learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that under rule 101 of the M.P. Krushi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Nidhi, Lekha Tatha Rajya Vipanan Sewa Ke Gathan Ki Riti Tatha Anya Vishay) Niyam, 1980 the services of the petitioner is liable to be transferred to any part of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 26.9.2016 passed in W.P. No.6092/2016 and has pointed out that the Rule does not prohibit transfer of a Secretary from grade ‘B’ Krishi Upaj Mandi to grade ‘C’ Krishi Upaj Mandi and has also pointed out that the gradation of the Mandi is on the basis of their performance. 5. Nothing has been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner to show that the petitioner’s services in any manner are adversely effected on account of the impugned order of transfer or the order of transfer has been passed on account of any malice. 6. 5. Nothing has been pointed out by counsel for the petitioner to show that the petitioner’s services in any manner are adversely effected on account of the impugned order of transfer or the order of transfer has been passed on account of any malice. 6. So far as the issue of frequent transfer is concerned, the record reflects that by order dated 1.11.2014 the petitioner was transferred from Bichhiya to Piplya, District Mandsaur and thereafter, by order dated 27.11.2015 the petitioner was transferred from Piplya, District Mandsaur to Sailana, District Ratlam and the present order of transfer has been passed after completion of more than one and half years at Sailana. There is no hard and fast rule that an employee cannot be transferred before completion of 3 years of service. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of O.P. Sharma v. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bhopal and others, vide order dated 6.11.2017 passed in W.A. No.958/2017 considered the scope of interference in such matter and has held as under:- “15. An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds that either the order is mala-fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass the order. 16. The apex Court in the case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [ (1993) 4 SCC 357 ], has observed that the Govt. instructions on transfer are mere guidelines without any statutory force and the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer unless the said order is alleged to have been passed by malice or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions. Thus, it is clear that the transfer policy does not create any legal right in favour of the employee. 17. It is well settled that even if the transfer order is passed contrary to the transfer policy then also the same cannot be a ground to be set aside the transfer order. The writ petition of the appellant regarding his repatriation is pending before Principal Seat at Jabalpur and there is an interim order in favour of the appellant.” 7. It is well settled that even if the transfer order is passed contrary to the transfer policy then also the same cannot be a ground to be set aside the transfer order. The writ petition of the appellant regarding his repatriation is pending before Principal Seat at Jabalpur and there is an interim order in favour of the appellant.” 7. Hence, the aforesaid grounds do not make out a case for interfering in the impugned order of transfer. 8. Lastly it has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s daughter is in class 6th and the academic session will be ending on 31.3.2018. The record reflects that this Court by order dated 12.9.2017 had granted the interim protection and the impugned order of transfer has not been given effect to till now. 9. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the petitioner is protected till 31.3.2018 by directing that the interim order passed by this Court will continue to operate till 31.3.2018 and the petitioner will immediately join at the transferred place on 1.4.2018. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off without interfering in the impugned order of transfer. Prateek Patwardhan for petitioner; Kamal Airen for respondents.