ORDER : 1. Notice confined to respondent No. 1 only. Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief: “That the impugned transfer order dated 20.07.2022 as contained in Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue at the present place of posting in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer with the respondent-Board and was transferred and posted in Electrical Division, Rewalsar in District Mandi, on 12.06.2019 and now vide order dated 20.07.2022 has been ordered to be transferred to the Office of SE(D) P/H Electrical, Sundernagar, which too falls in District Mandi. 4. The only ground on which the instant petition has been filed is that the petitioner is currently aged about 56 years and is due to retire within one year and four months and moreover the parents of the petitioner are oldaged and ailing being 85 years old. According to the petitioner, the transfer is contrary to law, more particularly, Clause 5.4 of the Comprehensive Guiding Principles, 2013. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 6. At the outset, it needs to be observed that as per settled law transfer is an incident of service. First, 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 his/her choice. 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. [Refer: S.K. Nausad Rahaman and Others vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2022 SC 1494 ] 7. The sole claim of the petitioner is based on the Comprehensive Guiding Principles, 2013, which in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court do not confer any indefeasible right upon the petitioner to claim his transfer or posting of his choice and his individual convenience is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. 8. The sole claim of the petitioner is based on the Comprehensive Guiding Principles, 2013, which in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court do not confer any indefeasible right upon the petitioner to claim his transfer or posting of his choice and his individual convenience is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. 8. The petitioner currently is nearing 57 years of age and is fortunate to have his parents alive. Taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, his parents would, obviously, be in their 80s, as alleged. But, this in itself cannot be a ground to assail the transfer as, firstly, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, his parents would obviously be in advanced-stages and would be facing age-related issues. But, then the petitioner despite his belonging to the State Cadre has been posed at a station which falls in District Mandi. We take a judicial notice of the fact that this part of the District Mandi is having a plain terrain and its topography is otherwise not difficult. 9. As a last ditch effort, the petitioner would urge that being a couple case, his transfer ought to be cancelled. Even this contention is without merit as the petitioner has failed to point out the station as also the name of the employer/department where his wife is stated to be working and currently posted. 10. The petitioner is serving in the Board and if his wife is serving in a government department, then it is for the wife to move the government seeking her transfer on the ground of being couple case as respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction or authority and is not vested with any authority much less power to order the transfer of an employee, who is not in the services of the Board. This authority vests only in the State Government. 11. Lastly and more importantly, it is more than settled that transfer is an administrative act and writ Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not normally required to interfere with such orders of transfer until or unless malafides in the matter in breach of statutory provisions are established, which is not the fact situation obtaining in the present case. 12. Thus, what can be deduced from the aforesaid discussion is that: (i) transfer is an incident of service. 12. Thus, what can be deduced from the aforesaid discussion is that: (i) transfer is an incident of service. (ii) no government servant including the servants of the Board, Corporation which falls within the meaning of State under Articles 12 and 226 of the Constitution has a vested right for posting at a particular station or to a particular post. (iii) transfer is necessary in public interest and for efficient administration. (iv) a public servant must comply with the transfer order, he can only approach against the transfer to higher authority. (v) transfer of a public servant on administrative ground or in public interest is not to be interfered with unless it is in violation of the statutory rules or/and is mala-fide. (vi) it is for the employer to decide when and where a public servant is to be transferred and the Court will have no jurisdiction to interfere unless transfer is mala-fide. (vii) executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer any indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. (viii) an employee has no fundamental right or for that matter a vested right to claim transfer or posting of his choice. (ix) individual convenience of a person, who is employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. 13. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.