Judgment 1. The precise and only ground for challenging the impugned order in this writ petition is that the Inspector General of Police do not have any competency to transfer the petitioner from Jammu to Jharkhand, inasmuch as, the powers, if at all vested with the Inspector General of Police, has to be exercised only to make transfers within the sector. 2. Objections have been filed by the respondents, contending therein that the petitioner joined CRPF as Constable (General Duty) on 29.11.2004 at Group Centre, CRPF Bantalab, Jammu and after completion of basic training, he was posted to 20 Bn CRPF on 29.03.2006. Thereafter after completion of normal tenure, the petitioner was transferred from 20 Bn to GC Hiranagar and was relived on 03.12.2013. It is further contended by the respondents in the objections that as per standing order No. 07/2015 regarding the transfer policy/instruction on transfer of Non-Gazetted (Executive/Technical/ Tradesman) force personnel including mahila personnel normal tenure for hard field area/SOZ, Static and peace stations in 3 years. It is further averred that the petitioner has been transferred from GC CRPF Hiranagar to 22 Bn CRPF Hazaribagh, Jharkhand by the IGP, Jammu in terms of order dated 10.05.2017 impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner also moved a representation seeking modification of the transfer order and the competent authority after considering the representation rejected the same. It is further contended by the respondents in the reply that the matter is pertaining to IGP Jammu sector office, Jammu being a competent authority and the following officers/units are under the administrative control of IG CRPF, Jammu and falls in Jammu sector:- IG CRPF Jammu DIG Kootah (now named as Hiranagar) DIG Jammu DIG (Operations) North Group Center Kootah (now named as Hiranagar) Group Center Bantalab 16 Bn. 6 Bn. 72 Bn. 20 Bn. 166 Bn. 22 Bn. 231 Bn. 126 Bn. Bn. 198 Bn. AWS-4 3. It is contended in the objections filed by the respondents that the above stated group centers and units falls under the jurisdiction of IG CRPF, Jammu, therefore, the IGP, CRPF Jammu is the competent authority for issuing transfer orders with respect to non-gazetted (Executive persons) within sector. 166 Bn. 22 Bn. 231 Bn. 126 Bn. Bn. 198 Bn. AWS-4 3. It is contended in the objections filed by the respondents that the above stated group centers and units falls under the jurisdiction of IG CRPF, Jammu, therefore, the IGP, CRPF Jammu is the competent authority for issuing transfer orders with respect to non-gazetted (Executive persons) within sector. Even if any of the above stated units is stationed in any part of India, the power of transferring the non-gazetted executive persons in any of the above stated unit lies with the IG CRPF, Jammu as all the adm control of above stated units falls under Jammu Sector. 4. In case “State of U.P and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal”, reported as (2004) 11 SCC 402 , it has been held by the Apex Court that transfer is the prerogative of the authorities concerned and Courts should not normally interfere therewith. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 hereunder:- “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. 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.” 5. The Apex Court in case “Union of India Vs. S.L Abbass” reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 , in paragraph No.7 has observed thus:- “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guidelines however does not confer upon the Government employee a legal enforceable right.” 6. The Apex Court in case titled Major General J.K. Bansal vs Union of India and others, (2005) 7 SCC 227 , decided on 23.08.2005 has observed as under:- “.....The scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. The Apex Court in case titled Major General J.K. Bansal vs Union of India and others, (2005) 7 SCC 227 , decided on 23.08.2005 has observed as under:- “.....The scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made” 7. The petitioner even otherwise is enjoying the interim order dated 31.07.2017, i.e., for more than two years, whereby status quo was directed to be maintained with reference to the petitioner. Otherwise also, the High Court normally does not interfere with such type of matters, especially if the transfer order has been passed in the exigency of service and in the interest of administration. The law is well settled on the issue of the transfers, especially, with regard to belt forces. The petitioner is serving in the belt force, therefore, the discretion lies with the respondents authority to transfer any belt force personnel to anywhere in the country. 8. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed along with connected IA.