ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N. K. Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. G. M. Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. G. Joshi, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioners in both the captioned petitions have prayed for identical reliefs. The Special Civil Application No.9118 of 2024 in view thereof is taken as lead matter and the order passed in the Special Civil Application No.9118 of 2024 would govern the Special Civil Application No.9155 of 2024. 3. By way of present petitions, the petitioners herein have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for direction upon the respondent No.1 herein to consider the applications of the petitioners who have been serving in the cadre of “Bailiff” in various Hon’ble Courts of the State of Gujarat in various Districts Courts of Gujarat, having their absolute administrative powers for framing the service conditions, for modifying the service conditions, for taking appropriate decisions pertaining to the service of the petitioners. All such decisions are within the absolute powers of the respondent authorities, as far as the appointment, transfer, disciplinary proceedings and other general conditions of service pertaining to the service of the petitioners including powers of transfer, powers of inter-district transfer, power of mutual transfers of petitioners who are serving in various subordinate Courts of various districts of State of Gujarat. 4. The petitioners applied pursuant to the Scheme which was floated as ‘One Time Settlement Scheme’. The said details are duly produced at Annexure-A. The petitioners herein, pursuant to the One Time Settlement Scheme with respect to the Inter District Transfer of subordinate judicial staff, Class-III and IV of the State of Gujarat dated 12.9.2022 duly produced at Annexure-B, which is in continuation to the communication dated 16.9.2022 duly produced at Annexure-C, applied under the said Scheme. Out of the 1323 applicants, petitioners’ applications seeking transfer under the said Scheme came to be ‘filed’. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :- “A. Be pleased to admit this petition. Out of the 1323 applicants, petitioners’ applications seeking transfer under the said Scheme came to be ‘filed’. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :- “A. Be pleased to admit this petition. B. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and/or directions and be pleased to direct the Hon'ble respondent authority to reconsider and re-decide the applications of the petitioners herein, and as per the High Court Regulation No.1409/43/65(G) dated 14/02/2023 (Annexure-D), the said decision i.e. 'one time measure' taken qua the 524 applicants for the application of transfer may also be extended/take qua the present applicants in the interest of justice; C. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and/or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the communication dated 19/03/2024 bearing resolution NO.B/1409/65 (Annexure-F); issued by the Hon'ble Respondent authorities and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue appropriate writ, order and/or directions directing Hon'ble authorities to reconsider and re-decide the applications preferred by the concerned petitioners (whose names have been mention in the tabular form statement annexed at Annexure-A) seeking inter- district transfer and all such applications of the concerned petitioners may kindly be ordered to be reconsidered and re- decided that too, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, and then the same may kindly be reconsidered and re- decided, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice. D. Be pleased to pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice.” Submissions on behalf of the petitioners :- 6. Mr. N. K. Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned action undertaken by the respondent No.1 is in violation of cardinal principles of natural justice. 6.1 It is submitted that no detailed reasons have been mentioned for not considering/rejecting the applications for inter-district transfer and, therefore, the aforesaid resulted in heart burning amongst the petitioners whose name are mentioned at Annexure-A, because many other bailiffs who had preferred their respective applications alongwith the petitioners way back in the year 2022 came to be considered and the inter-district transfer came to be allowed and without there being any reasons the applications for 524 candidates initially as per Resolution No.1409/43/65(G) came to be allowed. No reasons are assigned for rejecting the petitioners’ applications and, therefore, the same is a non-speaking decision and no separate orders are conveyed and no reasons are assigned for rejection of applications of the inter-district transfer qua the petitioners whose details are at Annexure-A. 6.2 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for be granted. Submissions on behalf of the respondent No.1 :- 7. Mr. G. M. Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the aforesaid Scheme which is introduced by the respondent authority was One Time Settlement Scheme which was benevolent in nature, to facilitate such employees who fell within the purview of the Inter-district Transfer Scheme. It is submitted that it was one time measure which is also known to the petitioners. 7.1 It is submitted that by communication dated 19.3.2024 the applications of the petitioners stand ‘filed’. It is submitted that while the said applications came to be filed, the bar provided in Clause 23(1) of the Scheme of the inter-district transfer of subordinate judicial staff, Class-III and IV in the State of Gujarat shall not be applicable to all those applicants and that they shall have liberty to file fresh application provided that they fall within the ambit of the said Scheme. It was informed that the said communication be intimated to the respective employees working under the establishment of the respective subordinate Courts i.e. the Principal Civil Judge, Rapar, Mandvi, Naliya and Dayapar. 7.2 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that there is no provision to review the transfer application in the said scheme and in view thereof, the prayers as prayed for are such that the same may not be considered. 7.3 Upon instructions Mr. Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel has placed on record the communication dated 24.7.2024 qua both the petitions wherein it is stated that after due deliberation, the Inter District Transfer Committee vide its Report dated 12.3.2024 had ordered to file transfer applications of the petitioners alongwith other employees with liberty to move a fresh application provided that, they fall within the ambit of the Inter District Transfer Scheme. The petitioners may apply afresh for Inter District Transfer if they wish to apply and fall within the criteria of the Scheme. The petitioners may apply afresh for Inter District Transfer if they wish to apply and fall within the criteria of the Scheme. Such Inter District Transfer applications are to be placed before the Inter District Transfer Committee once in a year in the month of March and it is solely the discretion of the Committee to consider transfer applications, in light of the Scheme for the Inter District Transfer of the Subordinate Judicial Staff Class-III and IV in the State of Gujarat. 7.4 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that there is no indefeasible right in favour of the petitioners to reconsider and re-decide the applications of the petitioners which are ‘filed’. It is submitted that it is within the domain of the employer to consider whether the employees are required to be transferred or not. 7.5 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that no interference is called for in the decision that is taken by the respondent No.1, wherein the applications of the employees figuring at Annexure-A stand ‘filed’. 8. In rejoinder, Mr. Majmudar, the learned advocate reiterated the contentions raised earlier and relied on the decisions reported in 2010 (3) SCC 732 , 2008 (15) SCC 711 and 1990 (4) SCC 594 . 8.1 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the communication dated 19.3.2024 whereby the applications of such employees seeking Inter District Transfer stands filed pursuant to the Scheme dated 12.9.2022 and 16.9.2022, the aforesaid action is violative of principles of natural justice, that reasons are required to be assigned and the petitioners were individually require to be informed about the aforesaid decision. 8.2 In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for be allowed. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the respondent herein on 12.9.2022 upon direction by the Hon’ble Chief Justice informed all the employees working in the respective establishments eligible for Inter District Transfer as per the “Scheme for Inter District Transfer of Subordinate Judicial Staff, Class-III and IV in the State of Gujarat” and who wish to seek Inter District Transfer in another District Court or Court may apply with necessary documents for Inter District Transfer. 10. It is apposite to refer to the said communication dated 12.9.2022 which read thus :- “CONFIDENTIAL No. : B.1409/65 Date 12.09.2022 To, 1. 10. It is apposite to refer to the said communication dated 12.9.2022 which read thus :- “CONFIDENTIAL No. : B.1409/65 Date 12.09.2022 To, 1. The Principal Judge, City Court, Civil Court, Ahmedabad, 2. The Principal Judge, Family Court, 3. The Principal District Judge, 4. The Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad 5. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad Sub. :- Inter District Transfer Sir/Madam, With reference to the subject noted above, I an directed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to request you to inform all the employees, working on your respective establishments, who are eligible for Inter District Transfer as per the 'Scheme for the Inter District Transfer of Subordinate Judicial Staff Class-II and IV in the State of Gujarat' and wish to seek Inter District Transfer on another District Court/Court, may apply with necessary documents for Inter District Transfer. I, therefore, request you to compile and furnish details of the employees seeking transfer in the prescribed proforma attached herewith, to the High Court on E-mail ID ar- bbranch@gujarat.gov.in in pdf file format as well as on-line in IRIS software of the High Court of Gujarat on or before 20/09/2022, duly verified by you. It is also requested to forward physical applications of all the employees with all the necessary documents, It is clarified that details of those employees, who have already applied for Inter District Transfer and their applications are pending in the High Court, shall be mentioned in the prescribed proforma but their physical application are not required to be forwarded. Yours faithfully, Registrar General” Clarification was issued by the respondent No.1 herein dated 16.9.2022 that the aforesaid is a one time measure for Inter District Transfer irrespective of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the “Scheme for the Inter District Transfer of Subordinate Judicial Staff Class-III and IV in the State of Gujarat”. The said communication reads thus :- “CONFIDENTIAL No. : B. 1409/65 Date: 16/09/2022 To, 1. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, 2. The Principal Judge, Family Court, 3. The Principal District Judge, 4. The Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad 5. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad Sub. The said communication reads thus :- “CONFIDENTIAL No. : B. 1409/65 Date: 16/09/2022 To, 1. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, 2. The Principal Judge, Family Court, 3. The Principal District Judge, 4. The Chief Judge, Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad 5. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad Sub. : Inter District Transfer Sir/Madam, In continuation of the High Court letter of even number dated 12/09/2022, on the subject noted above, I am directed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to request you to inform all the employees, working on your respective establishments, whose cadre falls within the purview of Inter District Transfer Scheme, who wish to seek Inter District Transfer on another District Court/Court, may apply with necessary documents, as a one time measure, for Inter District Transfer irrespective of eligibility criteria mentioned in the 'Scheme for the Inter District Transfer of Subordinate Judicial Staff Class-III and IV in the State of Gujarat . Yours faithfully, Registrar General” 11. The employees included in the list duly produced at Annexure-D dated 14.2.2023 are those employees whose applications were granted in accordance with the said Scheme. The petitioners herein form a part of those applications which came to be ‘filed’. It is the grievance of the petitioners herein that the aforesaid is violative of principles of natural justice, that no reasons are assigned while ‘filing’ the petitioners’ applications and that the orders are also not communicated to the petitioners individually. 12. On perusal of the communication issued by the respondent No.1 which is produced on record at Annexure-F (page-57) dated 19.3.2024, the respondent No.1 herein informed the respective Principal District Judges to communicate to the concerned employees working under the establishment that their applications stand ‘filed’. The said intimation read thus (page-115) :- “I am also directed I to inform you that the bar provided in Clause 23(1) of the 'Scheme for the Inter District Transfer of the Subordinate Judicial Staff Class-Ill and IV in the State of Gujarat` shall not be applicable to all these above mentioned applicants and they shall be at liberty to move a fresh application provided that they fall within the ambit of the e existing, Scheme. I, therefore, request you to inform the concerned applicants accordingly, under intimation to this High Court. I, therefore, request you to inform the concerned applicants accordingly, under intimation to this High Court. Yours faithfully, Registrar General” Upon perusal of the said communication dated 19.3.2024 duly produced at Annexure-F the respective Principal District Judges are directed to inform the concerned employees working under the respective establishment that the applications of the applicants whose name figure in the said communication be informed that upon the decision taken by the High Court, their applications seeking Inter District Transfer are ‘filed’ and further informed that the bar provided in Clause 23(i) of the “Scheme for the Inter District Transfer of the Subordinate Judicial Staff Class-Ill and IV in the State of Gujarat” shall not be applicable to all those applicants in the said list and that they shall be at liberty to file fresh application provided that they fall within the ambit of the existing Scheme. In light of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners herein are duly informed about the aforesaid communication, as referred above. Analysis :- 13. In the facts of the present case, it emerges that the One Time Settlement Scheme was floated by the respondent No.1 herein to facilitate the option of inter-district transfer to all the employees eligible under the Scheme of Inter District Transfer irrespective of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Scheme for the Inter District Transfer of the Subordinate Judicial Staff Class-III and IV in the State of Gujarat. Upon perusal of the communication dated 16.9.2022 with respect to the one time measure for Inter District Transfer qua all the employees working in the respective establishment whose cadre fall within the purview of the Inter District Transfer of the Subordinate Judicial Staff Class-III and IV in the State of Gujarat, the said Scheme was floated as a one time measure which was benevolent in nature to facilitate such employees who fall within the purview of the Inter District Transfer. Some of the employees’ applications came to be considered whereas some applications as that of the petitioners herein came to be ‘filed’. It is also kept open for those employees whose applications are ‘filed’ to apply afresh, if they fall within the ambit of existing Scheme. The aforesaid communication issued by the respondent No.1 dated 19.3.2024 is also considered by this Court. 13.1 It is apposite to refer to the communication dated 24.7.2024 placed on record by Mr. It is also kept open for those employees whose applications are ‘filed’ to apply afresh, if they fall within the ambit of existing Scheme. The aforesaid communication issued by the respondent No.1 dated 19.3.2024 is also considered by this Court. 13.1 It is apposite to refer to the communication dated 24.7.2024 placed on record by Mr. Joshi, the learned Senior Counsel, during the course of hearing. Relevant part of the said communication reads thus :- “After due deliberation, the Inter District Transfer Committee under its Report dated 12/03/2024 had ordered to file transfer applications of the petitioners alongwith other employees with liberty to move a fresh application provided that they fall within the ambit of the Inter District Transfer Scheme. As such, the petitioners may apply afresh for Inter District Transfer if they wish to apply and fall within the criteria of the Scheme. Such Inter District Transfer applications are to be placed before the Inter District Transfer Committee once in a year in the month of March and it is solely discretion of the Committee to consider transfer applications, in light of the Scheme for the Inter District Transfer of the Subordinate Judicial Staff Class III and IV in the State of Gujarat. Moreover, there is no provision for review of transfer application in the existing transfer Scheme. Hence, the Law Officer's Branch be informed on the above lines. Date :24-07-2024 Registrar General” Considering the aforesaid, there is no provision to review the transfer application in the existing transfer Scheme. In light of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, it is settled position of law that the transfer is an administrative order and is to be made as per need of the employer and the employee has no role to play in the same. Further, in the opinion of this Court, an employees’ right to request for transfer or posting of their chose is not a fundamental right nor is a vested right. 14. It is apposite to deal with the judgments relied by Mr. Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. Further, in the opinion of this Court, an employees’ right to request for transfer or posting of their chose is not a fundamental right nor is a vested right. 14. It is apposite to deal with the judgments relied by Mr. Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. (a) The 2010 (3) SCC 732 , in the case of Secretary And Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, in the opinion of this Court, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was held that the High Court failed to consider the museum activities to be expanded by the appellant in the said case which would adversely affect the monument and while taking the decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the High Court to take into consideration the recommendation of the Expert Committee for allowing construction, no the reasons were recorded for rejecting the application for modification. (b) In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jain, reported in 2008 (15) SCC 711 , wherein it is held that the reasons are heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. (c) In the case of S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, reported in 1990 (4) SCC 594 , it was the case wherein with respect to finding of General Court Martial in the Army wherein it was held that the principles of natural justice were required to be followed, even reasons were required to be recorded in administrative decisions also. 14.1 The aforesaid decisions, in the opinion of this Court, relied by Mr. Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case wherein the it was one time measure undertaken by the respondent No1 for those employees working in the respective establishment eligible for Inter District Transfer. As per the Scheme of Inter District Transfer of subordinate judicial staff, Class-III and IV of the State of Gujarat seeking Inter District Transfer to other District Court/Courts as a one time measure irrespective of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the said Scheme. As per the Scheme of Inter District Transfer of subordinate judicial staff, Class-III and IV of the State of Gujarat seeking Inter District Transfer to other District Court/Courts as a one time measure irrespective of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the said Scheme. While ‘filing’ the applications of the petitioners herein it is informed that the bar provided under Clause 23(i) of the Scheme would not be applicable to all those applicants mentioned in the communication dated 19.3.2024 produced at Annexure-F and they shall be at liberty to move a fresh application, if they fall within the ambit of the said Scheme. Such applications would be placed before the Inter District Transfer Committee once a year in the month of March and it is solely discretion of the Committee to consider such transfer applications in light of the Scheme. The petitioners herein are seeking reconsideration of their applications which are ‘filed’, however the Scheme does not provide for either review or reconsideration. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this Court, it is apposite to refer to the position of law governing the facts of the present case which read thus :- (a) In the case of Sk Nausad Rahaman And Others Versus Union Of India, reported in AIR 2022 SC 1494 , paragraphs 23 to 29, 43 and 53 read thus :- “23. While analyzing the rival submissions, certain basic precepts of service jurisprudence must be borne in mind. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. Third, policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the requirement of the administration. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. 26. Third, policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the requirement of the administration. In this context, Justice JS Verma (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for a three-judge Bench of this Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, (1992)1 SCC 306 held : "5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all-India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. [...] No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. [...] No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees." 27. The above principle was cited with approval in Union of India v. SL Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 where the Court held that transfer is an incident of service: "7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right." 28 Fourth, norms applicable to the recruitment and conditions of service of officers belonging to the civil services can be stipulated in: (i) A law enacted by the competent legislature; (ii) Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution; and (iii) Executive instructions issued under Article 73 of the Constitution, in the case of civil services under the Union and Article 162, in the case of civil services under the States. Fifth, where there is a conflict between executive instructions and rules framed under Article 309, the rules must prevail. In the event of a conflict between the rules framed under Article 309 and a law made by the appropriate legislature, the law prevails. Where the rules are skeletal or in a situation when there is a gap in the rules, executive instructions can supplement what is stated in the rules. 29. In the event of a conflict between the rules framed under Article 309 and a law made by the appropriate legislature, the law prevails. Where the rules are skeletal or in a situation when there is a gap in the rules, executive instructions can supplement what is stated in the rules. 29. Sixth, a policy decision taken in terms of the power conferred under Article 73 of the Constitution on the Union and Article 162 on the States is subservient to the recruitment rules that have been framed under a legislative enactment or the rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. 43 The realm of policy making while determining the conditions of service of its employees is entrusted to the Union for persons belonging to the Central Civil Services and to the States for persons belonging to their civil services. This Court in the exercise of judicial review cannot direct the executive to frame a particular policy. Yet, the legitimacy of a policy can be assessed on the touchstone of constitutional parameters. Moreover, short of testing the validity of a policy on constitutional parameters, judicial review can certainly extend to requiring the State to take into consideration constitutional values when it frames policies. The State, consistent with the mandate of Part III of the Constitution, must take into consideration constitutional values while designing its policy in a manner which enforces and implement those values. 53 In considering whether any modification of the policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the need for a proportional relationship between the objects of the policy and the means which are adopted to implement it. The policy above all has to fulfill the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing the values which underlie a decision making process informed by constitutional values. Hence while we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. Such an exercise has to be left within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly protected. Such an exercise has to be left within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly protected. The appeals shall be disposed of in the above terms.” (b) In the case of Abani Kanta Ray Versus State Of Orissa, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169, paragraph-10 reads thus :- “10. It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. (See N.K. Singh V/s. Union of India. The transfer of D.N. Mishra in this background being clearly in public interest, there was no permissible ground available to the tribunal for quashing it. We are constrained to observe that the division bench of the tribunal which made the impugned order dated 26.8.19933 quashing the transfer of D.N. Mishra on the ground of malice of the appellant as the Chairman of the tribunal did so against the material on record and the facts beyond controversy which borders on judicial impropriety. It may also be noted that such comments were made against the Chairman without even a notice to him and as stated in the order itself after treating the application for impleading the Chairman to be deemed rejected.” (c) In the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited Versus Bhagwan; Shiv Prakash, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574 , paragraph-5 reads thus :- “5. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the relevant rules to which our attention has been invited to, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the impugned orders of transfer. It is by now well-settled and often reiterated by this Court that no Government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other 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 of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the Management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. On the facts and circumstances of the cases before us, we are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that Rule 4. 1.1 of the Seniority Rules interdicts any transfer of the employees from one Office or Project or Unit to any one of the other as long as the seniority of such an employee is protected based on the length of service with reference to the date of promotion or appointment to the grade concerned irrespective of the date of transfer. We also consider it to be a mere submission in vain, the one urged on the basis of alleged adverse consequences detrimental to their seniority resulting from such transfer. In the facts of the present cases, at any rate, no such result is bound to occur since the project undertaken to which the respondents have been transferred is itself a new one and, therefore, we see no rhyme or reason in the alleged grievance.” (d) In the case of State Of Uttar Pradesh Versus Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 , paragraph-9 reads thus :- “9. The very questions involved, as found noticed by the High Court in these cases, being disputed questions of facts, there was hardly any scope for the High Court to generalise the situations based on its own appreciation and understanding of the prevailing circumstances as disclosed from some write ups in journals or newspaper reports. Conditions of service or rights, which are personal to the parties concerned, are to be governed by rules as also the inbuilt powers of supervision and control in the hierarchy of the administration of State or any authority as well as the basic concepts and well- recognized powers and jurisdiction inherent in the various authorities in the hierarchy. Conditions of service or rights, which are personal to the parties concerned, are to be governed by rules as also the inbuilt powers of supervision and control in the hierarchy of the administration of State or any authority as well as the basic concepts and well- recognized powers and jurisdiction inherent in the various authorities in the hierarchy. All that cannot be obliterated by sweeping observations and directions unmindful of the anarchy which it may create in ensuring an effective supervision and control and running of administration merely on certain assumed notions of orderliness expected from the authorities effecting transfers. Even as the position stands, avenues are open for being availed of by anyone aggrieved, with the concerned authorities, the Courts and Tribunals, as the case may be, to seek relief even in relation to an order of transfer or appointment or promotion or any order passed in disciplinary proceedings on certain well-settled and recognized grounds or reasons, when properly approached and sought to be vindicated in the manner known to and in accordance with law. No such generalized directions as have been given by the High Court could ever be given leaving room for an inevitable impression that the Courts are attempting to take over the reigns of executive administration. Attempting to undertake an exercise of the nature could even be assailed as an onslaught and encroachment on the respective fields or areas of jurisdiction earmarked for the various other limbs of the State. Giving room for such an impression should be avoided with utmost care and seriously and zealously courts endeavor to safeguard the rights of parties.” 16. Considering the aforesaid position of law, it is well settled that the transfer is an incidence of service and is not to be interfered by the Courts unless the said aspect is held to be arbitrary, malafide or infraction of any professed norms or principles governing the transfer. Further if the transfers are effected, revised or re-considered at the instance of the employee, the employer would not be in a position to function and the said employer would continue to be in such place and position, as the employee desires. 17. Further if the transfers are effected, revised or re-considered at the instance of the employee, the employer would not be in a position to function and the said employer would continue to be in such place and position, as the employee desires. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred above, in the case of Sk Nausad Rahaman And Others Versus Union Of India, reported in AIR 2022 SC 1494 , has set out the principles wherein it is held that, power of judicial review cannot be exercised to interfere with a policy decision. It is for the employer to execute the policy considering the interest of the establishment. 18. In the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein are seeking review/reconsideration of their applications which are ‘filed’ and have prayed for the quashing of the impugned communication dated 19.3.2014 bearing Resolution No.B/1409/65. In absence of any indefeasible right in favour of the petitioners to seek reconsideration and re-decide the applications, the said decision in the opinion of this Court is taken by the respondent No.1 in the administrative capacity and in the interest of administration of the establishment. Further, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order also does not suffer from any malafide, arbitrary or violation of any statutory provisions and in view thereof also this Court would not interfere exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions fail and stand dismissed.