ORDER : Vivek Rusia, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2019 whereby he has been transferred from district Ratlam to district Burhanpur. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the district police Ratlam vide order dated 28.09.2015 on compassionate ground and since then the petitioner is posted in the district Ratlam. For the first time vide order dated 4.7.2019 is being transferred from Ratlam to Burhanpur. The petitioner is assailing the impugned order mainly on the ground of personal inconvenience. According to the petitioner, his younger sister is suffering from illness and taking treatment from PGI Chandigarh. There is a direct train from Ratlam to Chandigarh and there is no direct connectivity from Burhanpur to Chandigarh by train, therefore, it would be very difficult for him to take him to Chandigarh for treatment. According to him, his mother is also quite aged and dependent on him. The petitioner sought permission to meet DG (Administration) Police Headquarter in order to put forth his personal inconvenience. He submitted a representation dated 08.07.2019 and thereafter he filed the present writ petition before this Court. At the time of hearing on admission counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner is a class-IV employee and has been transferred out of district which is not permissible, therefore, this Court has stayed the transfer order. 3. Now the respondents have filed the reply by submitting that the petitioner is working as a Constable which is a class-3 post and he has obtained the interim order by pleading the wrong fact, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the interference by the High Court in transfer matter purely on the ground of personal inconvenience is not permissible as per the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in various judgments. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner is working in the district Ratlam and for the first time, he has been transferred. Not only the petitioner but also as many as the number of Constables have been transferred to various places. 4. Shri Bhatjiwala submits that the police headquarter has issued a Circular dated 11.08.2005. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner is working in the district Ratlam and for the first time, he has been transferred. Not only the petitioner but also as many as the number of Constables have been transferred to various places. 4. Shri Bhatjiwala submits that the police headquarter has issued a Circular dated 11.08.2005. Although the same is on record but according to which in the case of compassionate appointment the condition of posting in the home district has been relaxed. However, during arguments, Shri Bhatjiwala admits that the petitioner is holding a class-3 post and the inter-district transfer is permissible. 5. In the said Circular there is a condition No. 1(b) also and according to which after completion of 5 years after the date of appointment in a district in which police personal was appointed can be transferred and so far the posting in the home district is concerned that clause 3 permits a posting of the compassionate appointee in the home district but there is no bar of transferring him out of the district that too after 15 years of service. 6. The petitioner is assailing the transfer order only on the ground of personal inconvenience that his younger sister is dependent on him and taking treatment from PGI Chandigarh. Burhanpur is also on the main rail line from the southern part of the country to Delhi. There are various trains from Burhanpur to Delhi and from Delhi he can go Chandigarh. The petitioner is not alleging any malafide or violation of any rules and service condition in his transfer order. The petitioner has remained more than 15 years in one place, therefore, the transfer order issued on the administrative ground is not liable to be interfered with. 7. In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Janardan Debanath and Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245 it was observed as follows: "No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2009) 15 SCC 178 held as under: "8. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. 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 contrary. No Government can function if the Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires 9. In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another (2010) 13 SCC 306 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under. "12. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the State authorities concerned which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The administrative authorities concerned may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their assessment of the law and order situation and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well settled that courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.