ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. The above Writ Petition is filed impugning the G.O.Rt.No.781 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (B.I) Department dated 21.12.2024, as modified by G.O.Rt.No.1 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (B.I) Department dated 01.01.2025, whereby the petitioner was transferred and G.O.Rt.No.782 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (B.I) Department dated 21.12.2024 issued by 1 st respondent transferring the 5 th respondent to the place of petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . 2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon on 06.01.1992. He was promoted to Deputy Civil Surgeon on 01.12.2007 and Civil Surgeon on 23.10.2019. The petitioner was posted as Additional DM & HO Chittoor, and subsequently transferred and posted as DM & HO, Nellore vide G.O.Rt.No.371, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department dated 06.05.2022. b) Be that as it may, the 1 st respondent promoted 21 Deputy Civil Surgeons (General Line) for the panel year 2023-2024 and issued posting orders vide G.O.Rt.No.782 dated 21.12.2024, wherein the 5 th respondent was posted as DM & HO, Nellore in the petitioner's place. The petitioner was transferred vide G.O.Rt.No.781 dated 21.12.2024 to Rampachodavaram, A.S.Raju District. Impugning the said transfer orders and also the transfer of the 5 th respondent in the place of the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30642 of 2024. Pending the said writ petition, the 1 st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1 HM & FW Department dated 01.01.2024 modifying the transfer of petitioner from Rampachodravaram, A.S. Raju District by C.S.R.M.O 300 Bedded Super Speciality Hospital, Kadapa in the existing vacancy caused due to unwillingness letter submitted by Dr.K.Padmavathi, Deputy DM & HO, Markapur, Prakasam District. The petitioner assailed his transfer as malafide, without prior concurrence and stigmatic. The petitioner was transferred at the fag end of his career i.e. before one year of his retirement. c) In respect of the transfer of the 5th respondent to the place of the petitioner, the petitioner contended that the respondent authorities failed to adhere to the procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.273 HM & FW (02) Department dated 21.05.1999 and G.O.Rt.No.780 HM & FW (B1) Department dated 15.09.2014. The 5 th respondent does not have the experience to hold the post of DM & HO. 3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 1 st respondent. The 5 th respondent does not have the experience to hold the post of DM & HO. 3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 1 st respondent. It was contended, interalia, that the Government took a comprehensive view of the performance of DM & HOs in the State. Certain DM & HOs are not performing their duties up to the mark and are poor in achieving the desired targets as per key performance indicators. As such, the Government, keeping in mind, that there is a ban on transfers, circulated the file in e-office to the Chief Minister through the Minister for Health, Medical and Family Welfare duly appraising the facts and the Chief Minister approved on 20.12.2024. Accordingly, transfers and posting orders are issued including the petitioner and 5 th respondent. The transfer of the petitioner is made on administrative grounds. The concurrence of the Finance Department was obtained vide U.O.No.FIN01-HR0PDPP (TRPO)/188/2024-HR-I (2665746), dated 30.12.2024, as the secretariat instance of e-office was not available from 21.12.2024 to 28.12.2024 due to migration of e-office system to the latest version. The Government issued a concurrence order vide G.O.Rt.No.784, HM & FW (B1) Department dated 31.12.2024. b) It was pleaded in the counter affidavit that the 5 th respondent has the required experience to be appointed as DM & HO. Accordingly, counselling/interview was conducted on 13.12.2024 to 21 Deputy Civil Surgeons (Promotees) and options were obtained on the same day as per the available existing vacancies. Though the 5 th respondent opted separate place of posting on her choice during the counselling, keeping in view the recommendations of the screening committee, she was posted as DM & HO, Nellore on promotion. 4. A separate counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 5 th respondent almost reiterating the contentions regarding experience and the selection process. 5. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for 5 th respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions, as per the averments in the affidavit, would further contend that the transfer of the petitioner is punitive. 5. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for 5 th respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions, as per the averments in the affidavit, would further contend that the transfer of the petitioner is punitive. The 5 th respondent did not opt for DM & HO, Nellore and in fact, the 5 th respondent opted for other three places, since the post of DM & HO, Nellore was not vacant by that time. He would submit that the respondent authorities failed to adhere to the procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.780 dated 15.09.2014. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II would submit that the transfer of the petitioner was on administrative grounds and the 5 th respondent was posted in the place of the petitioner by following due procedure. The respondent authorities followed the procedure and promoted the 5 th respondent as DM & HO and there was no infraction in the procedure. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II submitted the file relating to the transfer of the petitioner as well as the promotion of the 5 th respondent and also the posting of the 5 th respondent as DM & HO, Nellore and other similarly situated candidates. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II, across the bar, submitted the complaint made by one Sunkarla Jayaramudu against the petitioner making certain allegations and the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer dated 29.12.2024 received by the office of the Director of Public Health & Family Welfare, Vijayawada on 02.01.2025. A copy of the same has also been handed over to the counsel representing Sri Krishnaiah in the Court. 8. Now, the points for consideration are: 1) Whether the proceedings impugned i.e. transfer of the petitioner legally sustainable or punitive? 2) Whether the transfer and posting of the 5 th respondent as DM & HO legally sustainable? 9. It is a settled principle of law that the transfer of a Government servant, appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts, from one place to another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has a legal or vested right to be posted at any particular place. 9. It is a settled principle of law that the transfer of a Government servant, appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts, from one place to another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has a legal or vested right to be posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to another is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter and it is the prerogative of the employer. Transferring from one place to another is necessary for the public interest and efficiency in public administration. Normally courts are chary to interfere with an order of transfer made for administrative reasons. However, if an order of transfer is found to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or for extraneous considerations, the Court can interfere with such transfers. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar , [ AIR 1991 SC 532 ] observed thus: “4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest." (emphasis is mine) 11. In State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh D hatt , [ AIR 1993 SC 2486 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “3. … It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where, and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting …” 12. In State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh D hatt , [ AIR 1993 SC 2486 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “3. … It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where, and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting …” 12. In Union of India and Others vs. S.L. Abbas, [ (1993) 4 SCC 357 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the scope of judicial review is available when there is a clear violation of statutory provision or the transfer is swayed by mala-fide etc., It was observed as follows: “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...” 13. In N.K. Singh vs. Union of India and Others , [ (1994) 6 SCC 98 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the aspect of the transfer of an employee, the prerogative of an employer regarding transfer observed as follows: “23. … Assessment of worth must be left to the bonafide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessment accepted as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring the formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in the public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” The Apex Court further observed that: “24. This must be left, in the public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” The Apex Court further observed that: “24. … Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill-advised.” 14. In the State of M.P. and another Vs S.S.Kourav and others , [ (1995) 3 SCC 270 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: “The courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. It is for the administration to take appropriate decisions and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case transfer order having been issued on administrative grounds, expediency of those orders cannot be examined by the Court.” 15. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Shri Bhagwan , [ (2001) 8 SCC 574 ] , it was observed as follows: “No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since the transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable post 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 routine, as though they are the appellate authorities substituting their own decisions for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned.” 16. In Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others , [ (2009) 2 SCC 592 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: “19. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. In Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others , [ (2009) 2 SCC 592 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: “19. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law. 20. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.” 17. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Pubi Lombi Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others , [2024 0 Supreme (SC) 225] , reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and upheld the order of the learned single Judge, wherein the learned single Judge declined to interfere in a transfer. The Apex Court observed thus: “10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding mala-fide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .” 18. In the case at hand, the main contention of the petitioner is that the transfer proceedings suffer from legal malice. Before proceeding further let the Court examine what is legal malice or malice in law. 19. In the case at hand, the main contention of the petitioner is that the transfer proceedings suffer from legal malice. Before proceeding further let the Court examine what is legal malice or malice in law. 19. Malice as stated in the Advance Law of Lexicon , 3 rd Edition by P. Ramanatha Aiyar read as follows: "Malice - Unlawful intent Will; intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm, Express or actual malice is ill will or spite towards the plaintiff or any indirect or improper motive in the defendant's mind at the time of the publication which is his sole or dominant motive for publishing the words complained of. This must be distinguished from legal malice or malice in law which means publication without law full excuse and does not depend upon the defendant's state of mind. (1) The intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act. (2) Reckless disregard of the law or of a person's legal rights. (3) will: wickedness of heart. This sense is most typical in non-legal contexts". 20. Malice in the legal sense imports (I) the absence of all elements of justification, excuse or recognized mitigation, and (2) the presence of either (a) an actual intent to cause the particular harm which is produced or harm of the same general nature, or (b) the wanton and wilful doing of an act with awareness of a plain and strong likelihood that such harm may result. Malice, in its legal sense, does not necessarily signify ill-will towards a particular individual, but denotes that condition of mind which is manifested by the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse. Therefore, the law implies malice where one deliberately unlawfully injures another. 21. Malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause. ( S.R.Venkaraman Vs Union of India , [ AIR 1979 SC 49 , 51] ). 22. In the case at hand, the petitioner was transferred to Nellore as DM& HO vide Ex P7 dated 06.05.2022. During general transfers, the petitioner was not transferred. Later, it seems, a preliminary inquiry was conducted based on certain allegations, and the petitioner also participated in the inquiry. 23. 22. In the case at hand, the petitioner was transferred to Nellore as DM& HO vide Ex P7 dated 06.05.2022. During general transfers, the petitioner was not transferred. Later, it seems, a preliminary inquiry was conducted based on certain allegations, and the petitioner also participated in the inquiry. 23. As seen from the report submitted by the inquiry authority against the petitioner, the petitioner, the DM & HO deputed employees from one place to other places without the permission of the HOD concerned. The petitioner also failed to oversee the administration. The inquiry officer recommended that all the deputations/work orders given by the DM & HO, Nellore, be cancelled and disciplinary action be initiated for violating the instructions of DPH & FW willfully. The deputation orders given by the DM & HO to the Senior Assistants working in the establishment section by name, Mahesh, Saritha and Srikanth to be cancelled as they are not justifiable. The deputation orders given by the RDM & HS to one Venkateswara Rao, Office Superintendent, are also to be cancelled. The other allegation is that the petitioner connived Dr.Vamsi Krishna Suman, former Medical Officer, PHC, Krishnapuram, pursued regular PG in NMC, Nellore while in service (later resignation was accepted), in drawing pay and allowances. Even the inquiry officer recommended recovery of the pay and allowance for 29 months. 24. It is pertinent to mention here that Dr.Vamsi Krishna Suman prosecuted the PG course while discharging duties as Medical Officer, PHC, Krishnapuram as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO), he has drawn and paid the salary from 05.05.2022 to September 2024. 25. This Court is not relying on the said report to adjudicate the issue except to mention the same since it was passed on. 26. Of course, in the transfer proceedings, it was not mentioned anything about the inquiry, however, it was mentioned that the transfer is on administrative grounds. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the transfer order, qua, the petitioner suffers from legal malice, failed to demonstrate any instances in that regard. A total of seven DM & HOs were transferred vide G.O.Rt.No.781 dated 21.12.2024 and thereafter the petitioner was again transferred to another place by way of G.O.Rt.No.1 dated 01.01.2025. The competent authority affected the transfer on administrative grounds. 27. A total of seven DM & HOs were transferred vide G.O.Rt.No.781 dated 21.12.2024 and thereafter the petitioner was again transferred to another place by way of G.O.Rt.No.1 dated 01.01.2025. The competent authority affected the transfer on administrative grounds. 27. Though the learned counsel would contend that, reasons were not assigned, except using the words 'administration' no precedents were cited in support of the said contention. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.325 of 2019 dated 15.10.2019, observed that no reasons need to be mentioned in transfer proceedings. 28. The note file produced before this Court would disclose that the note was put up against certain officers working as DM & HOs on 10.12.2024, wherein the petitioner was shown one among them. In the note file, it was mentioned that the officers shown are facing certain allegations and charges pending and hence, the transfer on administrative grounds is required. In fact, the note file also disclosed promotions and transfers of 21 Deputy Civil Surgeons. It is a fact that none of the promotees opted for the place of DM & HO, Nellore including the 5 th respondent. 29. As seen from the note file, since there is a ban on transfers, the proposals were forwarded to the Chief Minister and the same was approved on 20.12.2024 as per the Business Rules. However, the financial concurrence was obtained on 30.12.2024, due to the reasons explained in the counter, and thereafter G.O. was issued on 30.12.2024. Once the Chief Minister approves the transfer, as per business rules, the financial concurrence is only a formality. In fact, due to some technical delay, the government order was issued with some delay. The delay, if any, is of no consequence, because of the approval by the Chief Minister. 30. Thus, the discussion supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the transfer of the petitioner neither suffers from legal malice nor is punitive. The employer is the best person to choose the employee to work at a particular place. The employee cannot as a matter of right, assail the transfer orders unless malice in law is established. 31. The petitioner also challenged the transfer of the 5 th respondent as DM& HO to Nellore. The employer is the best person to choose the employee to work at a particular place. The employee cannot as a matter of right, assail the transfer orders unless malice in law is established. 31. The petitioner also challenged the transfer of the 5 th respondent as DM& HO to Nellore. Once the petitioner transfer doesn't suffer from any malice or punitive, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the transfer of the 5 th respondent. Regarding the experience of the 5 th respondent to hold the post of DM& HO, the 1 st and 2 nd respondents considered all the aspects and thereafter only posted the 5 th respondent, though the petitioner did not opt for Nellore at the counselling. 32. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 33. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from making a representation to the 1 st respondent ventilating, grievance if any regarding the transfer. If such a representation is made, the learned 1 st respondent or the concerned shall consider the same, strictly as per the Rules. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.