ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the grant of following relief:- “i. That the notification dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.1, being unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and contrary to the transfer policy, may kindly be quashed and the respondents may please be directed to allow the petitioner to work as Assistant Engineer at HPPWD Sub-Division, Bir, Kangra, H.P.” 3. Petitioner has challenged transfer order dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) on the grounds that he has not completed the normal tenure of three years at his present place of posting and that his transfer has been ordered just to accommodate respondent No.2 in whose favour a D.O. Note was issued. Petitioner has already completed a tenure of two years eight months at HPPWD Sub Division, Bir. 4. As per Clause-10 of “Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013” prescribed normal tenure/stay of an officer/official at one station is three years, however, the Officers of IAS/HPAS/HPPS/HPFS and other allied Services of all Class-I & II Officers have been expressly excluded. Petitioner is Assistant Engineer and holding Class-I post, therefore, he has not been vested with any right to remain posted at a particular place for three years. 5. Though, the petitioner has alleged that his transfer has been effect on a D.O. Note, but neither the petitioner has provided any details of the author of D.O. Note nor any malafide has been alleged. Needless to say that the petitioner has not even chosen to implead the author of D.O. Note as a party. 6. A Division bench of this Court in CWP No. 2624 of 2020, titled as Shabnam vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 18th September, 2020 has held as under:- “2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It remains undisputed that prior to the present transfer, petitioner had served in the previous station for more than three years i.e. w.e.f. 9.2.2017. The Transfer Policy also provides that a normal tenure at a station would be three years. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been transferred on a D.O. Note issued by the fourth respondent, who is a MLA. Once, the employee has completed her normal tenure, it is none of her concern that on what basis the transfer order came into effect.” 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been transferred on a D.O. Note issued by the fourth respondent, who is a MLA. Once, the employee has completed her normal tenure, it is none of her concern that on what basis the transfer order came into effect.” 7. Petitioner, as noted above, has completed almost three years in HPPWD, Sub Division, Bir, Division Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. Further, no normal tenure is prescribed for Officers of the Government of Himachal Pradesh holding Class I or Class-II posts. 8. There is no gainsaying that the transfer is an incidence of service. The employer has unfettered power to effect transfer save and except for extraneous reasons. A government servant holding a transferable post, neither holds a fundamental nor legal right to remain posted at one place or the other. 9. In S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022, decided on 10th March, 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “24. While analyzing the rival submissions, certain basic precepts of service jurisprudence must be borne in mind. 25. First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. 26. Second, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration.” 10. In Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2008)1 SCC 180 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Rao vs. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148 ; (AIR 1939 SC 1236), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574 ; ( AIR 2001 SC 3309 ), State Bank of India vs. Anjan Sanyal (2001) 5 SCC 508 ; ( AIR 2001 SC 1748 ). Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. (1997) 3 ESC 1668; (1998) All LJ 70) and Onkarnath Tiwari vs. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow (1997) 3 ESC 1866; (1998 All LJ 245), has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.” 11. The petitioner, in the light of above discussion, has not been able to make out a case for interference, with the impugned order, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Thus, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to the costs. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.