JUDGMENT : T.R.RAVI, J. The petitioner who was working as Superintendent in the Pension and Audit Department of the Chief Office of the KSRTC was ordered to be transferred as per Ext.P1 to Malappuram unit. The order of transfer is challenged in this writ petition. By Ext.P1 order, 14 Superintendents were transferred. Consequently transfers of 13 other Superintendents were effected to adjust the staff strength. It can be seen that four persons were transferred to the Chief Office and four persons from the Chief Office were transferred to other offices. The petitioner has challenged the transfer on the ground that it is against the guidelines of transfer which is part of bipartite settlement between the management and the unions. Specific reference is made to Clauses 1.0.2, 1.0.5 and 9.02 of Ext.P2. The English translation of the guidelines has been produced as Ext.R1(a) along with a counter affidavit of the KSRTC. The petitioner contends that she has only 19 months left for retirement and such persons are protected as per Clause 9.02. It is also contended that she joined in the Chief office only two years back and there are persons who are remaining in the Chief Office for more than five years. It is hence submitted that there is a malafide intention in the transfer. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the required strength of Superintendents in Thiruvananthapuram District is 64 and the number of Superintendents who are having Thiruvananthapuram as their home district is 75. Out of the 75 Superintendents, 11 Superintendents were working outside the Thiruvananthapuram District for long and they had applied for transfer to their home district. It is submitted that if the applications for transfer to the home districts are considered, necessarily 11 Superintendents will be in excess in Thiruvananthapuram District and thus an equal number of Superintendents will have to be transferred to other units. It is submitted that the specific reason for the transfer mentioned in the order is strength adjustment. It is also submitted that the criterion for transfer of Superintendents is on the basis of district seniority as per Clause 6 of the Transfer Norms and Guidelines and the petitioner is the seniormost Superintendent in the Thiruvananthapuram District and has more than one year to retire from service. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been admittedly working in Thiruvananthapuram District since 1990. 3. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been admittedly working in Thiruvananthapuram District since 1990. 3. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the very same order of transfer was challenged by two other persons who were transferred, in W.P.(C) No.36782 of 2024, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge holding that transfer and postings are exigencies of service and no employee holding a transferable post can claim for posting of his choice at a particular place. The Court also found that in order to facilitate transfer of persons who have been serving out of the home district to the home district, it is necessary to transfer persons who have been serving longest in the home district. The Court further held that transfer guidelines are not statutory prescriptions and are for the convenience of the authorities and the employees. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged in WA No.701 of 2025 and the appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.05.2025. After referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.L Abbas [ (1993) 4 SCC 357 ], National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan [ (2001) 8 SCC 574 ], Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others [2024 SCC Online SC 279] and the judgment of this Court in Mayadevi M.P and another v. Canara Bank and others [ 2015 (4) KHC 874 ], this Court held that in the absence of any specific allegation of mala fides or at least a prima facie proof of vitiating circumstances, an order of transfer cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court held that it is too late in the day to assert that, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with an order of transfer of an employee as if it is sitting in appeal over such an order issued by the employer. Referring to the decision of this Court in Nixy James v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [ 2023 (3) KLT 893 ], the Court also observed that the law is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no legal right in this behalf. Referring to the decision of this Court in Nixy James v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [ 2023 (3) KLT 893 ], the Court also observed that the law is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no legal right in this behalf. The Division Bench affirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge that there is no statutory violation. It was also held that as far as Clause 9.02 is concerned the guidelines are only for the convenience of the authorities concerned to effect a proper transfer of the employees and it cannot be equated with the Statute. As far as mala fide is concerned there is no specific allegation of mala fides against any officers of the respondents and no person has been impleaded in their personal capacity. No specific instances have been pointed out for any malice against the petitioner in effecting the transfer. As pointed out earlier, this is a case where 13 persons were transferred out in order to accommodate 13 other persons who were transferred to their home district. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of transfer. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.