ORDER : The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the relieving order dated 09.12.2021 pursuant to the order of transfer dated 09.11.2021. 2. The present petition is the second round of litigation. The earlier round of litigation was WPS No. 6735 of 2021, whereby the petitioner substantively had challenged the order of transfer dated 09.11.2021 transferring the petitioner from Raipur to Jagdalpur. The said writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make representation within two weeks to the respondents and for the next three weeks the order of transfer was not to be given effect. Pursuant to the order of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition No. 6735 of 2021 decided on 07.12.2021, the petitioner first gave an intimation to the respondents in respect of the interim order granted by this Court on 15.12.2021. Subsequently, he made a representation in terms of the order of this Court dated 07.12.2021 on 17.12.2021. Meanwhile, the respondents have passed the order of relieving on 09.12.2021 which was communicated to the petitioner on 20.12.2021 at fore noon session. According to the petitioner, this is an antidated document. Pursuant to the non-compliance of the order, the petitioner has already filed a Contempt Petition before this Court i.e. Contempt Case No. 78 of 2022. Notices have already been issued to the respondents in the said contempt petition. The petitioner received the relieving order on 20.01.2022, yet the present writ petition has been filed after more than two months i.e. on 22.03.2022. 3. On a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was not in a position to inform to the Court as to how long the petitioner has been posted at Raipur but he accepts that it is more than 2-3 years in any case. According to the petitioner once when the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 was in operation, the respondents could not have issued the relieving order and should have laid their hands off, till the representation of the petitioner is decided. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the representation also till date has not been decided and therefore, the order of the relieving should be stayed at least till the representation is decided. The other contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the representation also till date has not been decided and therefore, the order of the relieving should be stayed at least till the representation is decided. The other contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 has been accommodated at Raipur at his own request. That in order to accommodate the respondent No. 5, the petitioner has been transferred from Raipur to the place where the respondent No. 5 has come. Petitioner also has questioned the competency of the authority who has issued the relieving order and submits that the respondent No. 4 also is a person who already stands transferred and is also relieved and therefore, he could not have discharged his duties in the course of issuance of the relieving order. 4. So far as transfer is concerned, it is by now well settled by a catena of decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also by the High Court that untill and unless the order of transfer is contrary to rules or is in any manner adversely affecting the service condition of the employee or an officer as a matter of routine. The Courts are not permitted to interfere with the administrative decisions of the respondents unless they are issued with malafides or are arbitrary and contrary to statutory provisions. As regards accommodation of respondent No.5 being the cause for the transfer of the petitioner, this Court does not find any merits on the said submission as the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has held that in the event of an employee being transferred the only remedy that he has is to approach the respondent/employer by way of a representation. That in the course of allowing a request for transfer of an employee or an officer the consequence change at the place of posting of the employee/officer who has made the request that cannot be held to be in any manner arbitrary or bad in law. Unless it is with malafides. 5. The view of this court stands fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 . “7. Unless it is with malafides. 5. The view of this court stands fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 . “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. 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.” The same principle have further been reiterated in “Shilpi Bose V. State of Bihar”, “Union of India V. S.L. Abbas”, “State of U.P. V. Siyaram”, “Union of India V. Janardan Devanath”, “State Bank of India V. Anjan Sanyal”, “State of U.P. V. Gobardhan Lal”, “Mohd. Masood Ahmad V. State of U.P. & Ors. JT [2007 12 SC 467]”, “Union of India & Anr. V. Murlidhar Menon & Ors. [ 2009 11 SCALE 416 ]”, and “Rajendra Singh & Ors. V. State of U.P. & Ors. JT [2009 10 SC 187]”. What is also weighing in the mind of this Court for not entertaining the writ petition is the fact that the petitioner already has completed a normal tenure of posting at a particular station i.e at Raipur and the respondent No. 5 is being brought to the present place of the petitioner from a schedule area which again in the policy of State Government itself it is envisaged, of accommodating an employee who has worked at a scheduled area after a considerable period of service to be posted to a non scheduled area. 6. The other fact which is also evident from the pleading in the present writ petition is that the interim order passed by this Court in WPS No. 6735 of 2021 was on 07.12.2021 and the petitioner for first had brought the impugned order to the notice of the respondents on 15.12.2021 by which time the order of relieving had already been issued. Though the petitioner contends that the same is an antedated document. Though the petitioner contends that the same is an antedated document. Whether it is an antedated document or not it is not within the scope of this Court at this juncture in the present writ petition to be considered. The order of transfer particularly when the service of the petitioner is a transferable service can be interfered only to the limited extent which is permitted to. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgment to the recent past i.e. in the event of the order of transfer being contrary to the service conditions and also adverse to the service conditions. In the instant case neither is it case of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner is not transferable nor is the case of the petitioner that by way of the transfer his service conditions are going to be adversely affected in any manner. 7. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs Union Of India & Ors reported in 2012 (1) SCC 273 highlighting the manner in the Government officials have to act and further contending that the act of the part of the respondents in the instant case amounts to a contempt. As per Paragraph 7 & 8 of the said judgment. 8. This Court has no hesitation in reaching to a conclusion that the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta (supra) cannot be made applicable in the instant case as the said judgment has been pronounced under an entire different contextual background. Moreover the same has not been decided under the service law jurisprudence and therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts itself. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to certain representation made by the petitioner to the Director on 22.12.2021 stating that the relieving order has been issued while the petitioner was on leave. This ground also does not find force on the submission made by the petitioner for the reason that an administrative decision taken by the respondents particularly in respect of transfer and posting of the employee can be taken even in the course of the employee being on leave. This ground also does not find force on the submission made by the petitioner for the reason that an administrative decision taken by the respondents particularly in respect of transfer and posting of the employee can be taken even in the course of the employee being on leave. The employer need not wait till the employee who is on leave reports back on duty for taking administrative decision particularly for deciding the place and posting and transfer of the officers and employees under the respondents. For the all the aforesaid reason this Court does not find any case made out by the petitioner. 10. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs.