JUDGMENT Shukla, J. -- 1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.9.2021 passed in W.P.No.17767/2021 (Lavkush Kumar Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The appellant has challenged the order of transfer dated 31.8. 2021 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby he has been directed to be transferred from Vikas Khand Sirmour, District Rewa to Vikas Khand Sabalgarh, District Morena on the post of Assistant Block Manager. 3. It is alleged that the appellant was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Block Manager on contract basis by the respondent No.2 on 1.9.2015. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred from Vikas Khand Sirmour, District Rewa to Vikas Khand Sabalgarh, District Morena on the post of Assistant Block Manager. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the circular dated 24.2.2020 submitted that there is no provision of transfer of a contractual employee because his service is not permanent in nature but his place can be changed on extreme conditions and on administrative exigency but this order does not reflect any such conditions or administrative exigency. He has been transferred to accommodate the respondent No.5. He has placed reliance on the judgment dated 16.3. 2021, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.281/2021 (Seema Pasi v. State of M.P. and others) wherein similarly situated person was permitted to continue in the present place of posting. It is further submitted that the appellant has been transferred at a distance of almost 650 kms. from the place of posting causing great hardship to the entire family. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contention and contended that the transfer is a condition of service and there is no embargo for not transferring the contractual employee like the petitioner. The services of the appellant are governed by the Human Resources Manual and as per Clause 3.5 which deals with Staff Appointment and Contract, there is a specific provision that the contract would be renewed annually subject to satisfactory annual performance appraisal, all fixed tenure staff would be transferable as per the needs of SRLM. The services of the appellant are governed by the Human Resources Manual and as per Clause 3.5 which deals with Staff Appointment and Contract, there is a specific provision that the contract would be renewed annually subject to satisfactory annual performance appraisal, all fixed tenure staff would be transferable as per the needs of SRLM. It is further submitted that the appellant was well aware of this fact that his services are transferable and he can be transferred at any point of time, subject to administrative exigency and requirement of work. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record . The learned Single Judge has considered that the challenge to the transfer order has been made on the three grounds. Firstly, that the transfer order is violative of Clause 33 of the transfer policy. Second ground is that the appellant is a contractual employee, therefore, he is exempted from being transferred to some other place and the third ground is regarding the personal hardship being faced by the appellant owing to such transfer order as he has been transferred at a distant place just to accommodate the respondent no.5 and also the non-application of rationalization policy. 7. The appellant was initially appointed on contract basis and was posted at Balaghat. The services of the appellant are governed by Model Human Resource Manual wherein Clause No.3.5 deals with Staff Appointment and Contract, which reads as under : “3.5- Staff Appointment and Contract,- A contract i.e., ‘a legal binding arrangement between SRLM and the concerned staff for performing their roles and duties while engaged as staff under SRLM ‘would be signed once the selected candidates confirm their joining after probation period. The recruitment and selection of staff in SRLM in general would be on a fixed tenure basis. All such appointments would follow the Recruitment and Selection Policy of SRLM. In general, all staff engaged on fixed tenure basis would have three year tenure, unless otherwise decided by the SMD/CEO, EC or the Governing Board, as the case may be. Other terms of contract include: Contract would be renewed annually subject to satisfactory annual Performance Appraisal All fixed tenure staff would be transferable as per the needs of SRLM. In general, all staff engaged on fixed tenure basis would have three year tenure, unless otherwise decided by the SMD/CEO, EC or the Governing Board, as the case may be. Other terms of contract include: Contract would be renewed annually subject to satisfactory annual Performance Appraisal All fixed tenure staff would be transferable as per the needs of SRLM. The contract of Fixed Tenure Staff may be terminated upon unsatisfactory performance (as per Performance Appraisal) or, terminated due to disciplinary action or may end after completion of the contract period or may end voluntarily (resignation) by the staff. For other staff, the terms and conditions of work and conduct would be defined in the contract.” 8. In pursuance to the appointment order issued to the appellant, the appellant was required to execute a contract with the respondents/department. From perusal of the aforesaid conditions of appointment and contract, it is clear that the service of the appellant is transferable as per the needs of State Rural Livelihoods Mission (SRLM). The basic object of the Mission is to facilitate the district and block units in building and supporting the community institutions and community professionals. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the appellant has been transferred just to complete the Mission which is still pending at the transferred place of posting and as per the transfer order, the appellant is required to again enter into an agreement/contract with the respondents authorities at the new transfer place. The transfer is made with an object to complete the Mission and as per the availability and requirement of the appellant’s service at the transferred place. 10. The appellant is posted at the present place of posting since 2015 and further the respondents have stated that the appellant has been transferred on administrative exigency just to complete the Mission which is still pending at the transferred place of posting. The judgment relied by the appellant in the case of Seema Pasi (supra), would not apply to the facts of the present case . The appellant has been transferred on administrative exigency as he has already stayed for about 6 years at the present place of posting and further he has been transferred to complete the mission which is still pending at the transferred place of posting. 11. The appellant has been transferred on administrative exigency as he has already stayed for about 6 years at the present place of posting and further he has been transferred to complete the mission which is still pending at the transferred place of posting. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge has already observed that the appellant would be at liberty to prefer a representation before the respondents authorities for redressal of his grievances and if such representation is preferred within ten days from the date of the order, the authorities shall deal with the representation and pass a self contained speaking order. 12. In view of the aforesaid, no error is found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, hence no interference is called for. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is also disposed of.