JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by the order of transfer dated 04.07.2020, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant of following reliefs:- i) That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the order dated 04.07.2020 which has been issued in violation of Transfer Policy and law laid down by this Hon'ble High Court as well as Apex Court transfer on D.O. note from the local M.L.A., who send the same to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and U.O. note has been issued from the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister and without assigning any reason and to adjust respondent No. 3 especially when he has not completed his normal tenure and completed 8 months only, there is no other grounds for transferring the petitioner except just to adjust the respondent No. 3 with the mala fide intention of respondent No. 2. ii) That the respondent may be directed to adhere the condition of transfer policy and the petitioner may be allowed to continue at the present place of posting till her completion of normal tenure as per Police Rules and Acts also normal tenure is two years. Iii) The respondents may be restrained from relieving the petitioner in pursuance of Annexure P-1. 2. The petitioner is a Class-I Officer and posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police (for short the Dy. S.P.) at Baijnath, District Kangra and vide impugned order dated 04.07.2020 (Annexure P-1) has been ordered to be transferred to IRBn Jungalberi, District Hamirpur. 3. The transfer order has been assailed on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner could not have been transferred in a short span of about eight months as against the normal tenure of three to five years, as prescribed in the Transfer Policy and; secondly, the transfer is not on the basis of administrative exigency or public interest, but is based on a D.O. note issued by a local M.L.A., Baijnath, District Hamirpur. 4. It is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and as long as the authority acts keeping in view the administrative exigency and taking into consideration the public interest as the paramount consideration, it has unfettered powers to effect transfer subject of course to certain disciplines. 4. It is trite that transfer is an incidence of service and as long as the authority acts keeping in view the administrative exigency and taking into consideration the public interest as the paramount consideration, it has unfettered powers to effect transfer subject of course to certain disciplines. Once it is admitted that the petitioner is State government employee and holds a transferable post then he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other within the District in case it is a District cadre post and throughout the State in case he holds a State cadre post. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and courts should not ordinarily interfere with the orders of transfer instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. Who should be transferred where and in what manner is for the appropriate authority to decide. The courts and tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to "proper place". It is for the administration to take appropriate decision. 5. Even the 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 redressal 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. Even if, the order of transfer is made in transgression of administrative guidelines, the same cannot be interfered with as it does not confer any legally enforceable rights unless the same is shown to have been vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of any statutory provision. The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. 6. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations without any factual background foundation or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. 6. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations without any factual background foundation or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, such as on the basis of complaints. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative action should be just and fair. An order of transfer is to satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution otherwise the same will be treated as arbitrary. 7. Judicial review of the order of transfer is permissible when the order is made on irrelevant consideration. Even when the order of transfer which otherwise appears to be innocuous on its face is passed on extraneous consideration then the Court is competent to go into the matter to find out the real foundation of transfer. The Court is competent to ascertain whether the order of transfer passed is bonafide or as a measure of punishment. 8. The law regarding interference by Court in transfer/posting of an employee, as observed above, is well settled and came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 ; B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131 ; Union of India and others vs. H.N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445 ; Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (1991) Supp2 SCC 659 ; Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 ; Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SCC 532 ; State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270 ; Union of India and others vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, (1995) Supp3 SCC 214 ; Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and others, (1995) Supp4 SCC 169 ; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash, (2001) 8 SCC 574 ; Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104 ; Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245 ; State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405 ; State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 ; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, (2004) 12 SCC 299 ; Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592 ; Union of India and others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304 ; Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178 ; and State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another, (2010) 13 SCC 306 and the conclusion may be summarised as under:- 1. Transfer is a condition of service. 2. It does not adversely affect the status or emoluments or seniority of the employee. 3. The employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time. 4. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to at what place and for how long the services of a particular employee are required. 5. Transfer order should be passed in public interest or administrative exigency, and not arbitrarily or for extraneous consideration or for victimization of the employee nor it should be passed under political pressure. 6. There is a very little scope of judicial review by Courts/Tribunals against the transfer order and the same is restricted only if the transfer order is found to be in contravention of the statutory Rules or malafides are established. 7. In case of malafides, the employee has to make specific averments and should prove the same by adducing impeccable evidence. 8. The person against whom allegations of malafide is made should be impleaded as a party by name. 9. 7. In case of malafides, the employee has to make specific averments and should prove the same by adducing impeccable evidence. 8. The person against whom allegations of malafide is made should be impleaded as a party by name. 9. Transfer policy or guidelines issued by the State or employer does not have any statutory force as it merely provides for guidelines for the understanding of the Department personnel. 10. The Court does not have the power to annul the transfer order only on the ground that it will cause personal inconvenience to the employee, his family members and children, as consideration of these views fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. 11. If the transfer order is made in mid-academic session of the children of the employee, the Court/Tribunal cannot interfere. It is for the employer to consider such a personal grievance. 9. The personal inconvenience and hardship of an employee are considerations which lie solely within the purview of the Employer and it is always open to the aggrieved party to make a representation to his Employer. 10. Adverting to the first contention, it needs to be noticed that the Transfer Policy framed by the State Government excludes its applicability in so far as it relates to tenure of posting the officers belonging to Class-I. 11. Confronted with this contention, the learned Senior Counsel Ms. Sunita Sharma would rely upon Section 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007 (for short the 'Act') to contend that since the petitioner being a Dy. S.P. (SDPO) could not have been transferred before a minimum tenure of two years. 12. Section 12 of the Act reads as under:- "12. Tenure of office of police functionaries. An Officer posted as Station House Officer or as Sub-Divisional Police Officer or as Superintendent of Police of a District shall normally have a minimum tenure of two years and a maximum tenure of three years, unless promoted to a higher post earlier: Provided that an officer may be retained for upto six months after expiry of his tenure, in the public interest for reasons to be recorded in writing. Provided further that any such officer may be removed from his post before the expiry of the minimum tenure of two years by the authority competent to remove him for reasons to be recorded in writing, consequent upon- (i) filing of a charge-sheet in a criminal case in a Court of law; or (ii) serving of a charge-sheet for a major penalty under the relevant disciplinary rules; or (iii) suspension from service in accordance with the provisions of the relevant disciplinary rules; or (iv) reversion to a lower post for administrative reasons; or (v) incapacitation by physical or mental illness or otherwise becoming unable to discharge his functions and duties; or (vi) administrative exigencies, in the larger public interest. 13. No doubt, the minimum tenure of service of two years at a given station is provided to Officers posted as Station House Officer or as Sub-Divisional Police Officer or as Superintendent of Police of a District. However, that does not mean that the aforesaid Officers cannot be transferred before the completion of the minimum tenure, that too, because of the administrative exigency or in public interest. 14. In order to ensure that the Officers/Officials working in the Police Establishment are not subjected to illegal, arbitrary or undue frequent transfers and the transfers of the Officers/Officials is not left to an individual, the Act itself provides for adequate safeguard by providing a State Police Establishment Committee, headed by the Director General of Police, which apart from discharging other functions, has been made responsible for recommending proposals for transfers and postings of the Gazetted Officers to the State Government. 15. This would be evidently clear from Section 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007, which reads as under:- "56. Police Establishment Committees. (1) There shall be a State Police Establishment Committee headed by the Director-General of Police and comprising four senior police officers not below rank of Inspector-General of Police, nominated by the Director-General of Police. The State Police Establishment Committee shall be responsible to- (i) approve all postings and transfers of Non-Gazetted Police Officers between the various wings of the police organization, and deputation outside the organisation and for inter-range transfers in all the wings with the prior approval of the Government in accordance with directions in this regard. The State Police Establishment Committee shall be responsible to- (i) approve all postings and transfers of Non-Gazetted Police Officers between the various wings of the police organization, and deputation outside the organisation and for inter-range transfers in all the wings with the prior approval of the Government in accordance with directions in this regard. (ii) approve the issue of general policy directions and Standing Orders to the Deputy Inspector-General and District Superintendent of Police on transfers within their jurisdiction; (iii) hear and dispose off representations against transfer orders issued by authorities subordinate to the Director-General of Police; (iv) recommend proposals for postings and transfers of Gazetted Police Officers to the State Government subject to provisions of this Act and relevant rules; and (v) make recommendations to the State Government with regard to representations in service matters from Gazetted Police Officers; Provided that the Director-General of Police may, with the previous approval of the State Government, constitute an Establishment Committee for any specific unit within the Police Organisation for making postings and transfers of Non-Gazetted Police Officers within such unit." 16. Once the transfers and postings are to be recommended by a multi members Committee and not by an individual, then the same carry more credibility, than the recommendation made by an individual as it is nigh impossible to attribute motive to such Committee. 17. Adverting to the other contention of the petitioner, we in order to satisfy ourselves called for the record of the transfer and find that the transfer of the petitioner has been effected on administrative exigency and in public interest and not on the basis of any D.O. note. The copy of D.O. note, which has been appended with the petition as Annexure P-2 has not been acted upon by the respondents. 18. Moreover, the only recommendation made in the D.O. note was to transfer one Partap Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police (SDPO), Darlaghat, District Solan vice-versa the present petitioner. Whereas in the instant case, it is one Bhram Dass, Dy. S.P., BBMB, PSO, Talwara and not the Partap Singh, Dy. S.P. (SDPO), Darlaghat, as was proposed in the D.O. note, has now been posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police (SDPO), Baijnath. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been transferred to Darlaghat but stands transferred to Jungalberi. 19. Whereas in the instant case, it is one Bhram Dass, Dy. S.P., BBMB, PSO, Talwara and not the Partap Singh, Dy. S.P. (SDPO), Darlaghat, as was proposed in the D.O. note, has now been posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police (SDPO), Baijnath. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been transferred to Darlaghat but stands transferred to Jungalberi. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons set out above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.