ORDER : Challa Gunaranjan, J. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the official respondents herein in issuing the impugned G.O.Rt.No.781 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (B1) Department, dated 21.12.2024, wherein the petitioner herein was transferred as DMHO, Tirupathi District to King George Hospital (KGH) (Hospital Administration), Visakhapatnam, as Civil Surgeon Residential Medical Officer (CSRMO) (Hospital Administration) and consequentially, posting the 3 rd unofficial respondent on promotion as DMHO, Tirupathi District at Tirupathi, vide G.O.Rt. No.782 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (B1) Dept, dated 21.12.2024, as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law and also without authority. Hence this Hon’ble court may be pleased to set aside both the impugned G.O.Rt.No.781, dated 21.12.2024, and G.O.Rt.No.782, dated 21.12.2024, to the extent of the petitioner and the 3 rd unofficial respondent only by declaring that the petitioner herein is entitled to continue as DMHO at Tirupathi and to pass…” 2. Facts germane for disposal of the present writ petition are as follows : Petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon through direct recruitment on 20.05.2005 and later got promoted as Civil Surgeon Specialist and was posted at Government General Hospital, Kurnool, on 03.02.2020. Later he was transferred as Joint Director (Child Health Immunization) at the office of CH&FW, A.P., Vijayawada, on 15.10.2020, and later, posted as District Medical and Health Officer (“D.M. & H.O.”) at Chittoor on 20.05.2021. Due to reorganisation of Districts, he was posted as D.M. & H.O. at Tirupati, vide G.O.Rt.No.533, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department, dated 06.07.2022. Subsequently, 1 st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.525, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department, dated 23.06.2023, by which, one Dr.R.R. Reddy, Civil Surgeon, working as OSD, Minister for Health and Family Welfare and Medical Education, came to be posted in the place of the petitioner by surrendering his services and called upon to report before the Government. Assailing the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.15350 of 2023, in which, this Court passed interim order of status quo on 28.06.2023 and later, by order, dated 06.07.2023, the aforesaid G.O., came to be suspended. Therefore, petitioner continued to render services as D.M. & H.O., Tirupati. Assailing the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.15350 of 2023, in which, this Court passed interim order of status quo on 28.06.2023 and later, by order, dated 06.07.2023, the aforesaid G.O., came to be suspended. Therefore, petitioner continued to render services as D.M. & H.O., Tirupati. While things stood thus, 1 st respondent has issued G.O.Rt.No.781, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department, dated 21.12.2024 effecting transfers and postings to seven officers in the cadre of Civil Surgeons working as D.M. & H.Os. in various Districts on administrative grounds in relaxation of ban on transfers, petitioner thereby came to be transferred as Civil Surgeon Residential Medical Officer (“CSRMO”) (Hospital Administration) at King George Hospital (“K.G.H.”), Visakhapatnam. Further, 1 st respondent has issued G.O.Rt.No.782, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department, dated 21.12.2024, while effecting promotions to certain Deputy Civil Surgeons for the panel year 2023-24, to the next post of Civil Surgeons (General Line) under Class-A of Category (3)(a) of A.P. Health and Family Welfare Service Rules, 2002 (for short, “2002 Rules”), issued posting orders. In total, about 21 persons were promoted from Deputy Civil Surgeons to Civil Surgeons and were issued postings at various places in the existing vacancies of such promoted posts. 3 rd respondent came to be promoted and posted as D.M. & H.O., at Tirupati, as petitioner has been transferred from said place to Visakhapatnam. Assailing both these G.O.Rt.Nos.781 and 782 of even dated 21.12.2024, petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 3. This Court, by order, dated 26.12.2024, has suspended the operation of G.O.Rt.No.781, dated 21.12.2024 only, by which, petitioner has been transferred. Subsequently, by order, dated 07.01.2025, the aforesaid order came to be modified to the extent of petitioner alone. 4. 1 st respondent filed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that the transfer of petitioner has been done purely on administrative grounds and further that petitioner since was promoted as CSRMO (Hospital Administration), which is non-teaching post, under Class- A, Category (3)(c) 2002 Rules, vide G.O.Rt.No.92, dated 03.02.2020, was initially posted as Civil Surgeon Specialist at GGH, Kurnool, later he has been posted as Joint Director (Child Health Immunization) in the office of Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, A.P., Vijayawada, on 15.10.2020. against mismatch post. against mismatch post. It is specifically pleaded that having regard to specific qualification of petitioner i.e., M.D. (Hospital Administration), which was the criteria considered for his promotion as Civil Surgeon Specialist (Hospital Administration), he could be accommodated in said post, having total cadre strength of three posts in the State, which are at KGH, Visakhapatnam, GGH, Guntur and GGH, Kurnool, however, he has been posted at other places, on work orders to serve basis in mismatch post. It is also stated that 1 st respondent has having reviewed the performance of all D.M. & H.Os. and evaluating various factors, after circulating the file through e-office to Hon’ble Chief Minister, having obtained approval, issued transfer and posting orders to various Civil Surgeons, including petitioner working as D.M. & H.Os., purely on administrative grounds in relaxation of ban on transfers. In so far as finance concurrence is concerned, it is stated that as the file has already been circulated to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the finance concurrence being routine procedure, the same has been circulated to Finance Department and got approved by G.O.Rt.No.784, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department, dated 31.12.2024. In so far as promotions and postings effected to 3 rd respondent and other Deputy Civil Surgeons to the post of Civil Surgeons (General Line), it is stated that based on D.P.C., recommendations for the panel year 2023-24, Government has accepting such recommendations issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.97, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department, dated 13.08.2024, and directed the 2 nd respondent to take necessary steps. Further, Government has constituted Screening Committee vide G.O.Rt.No.780, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department, dated 15.09.2024, for evaluating and selecting D.M. & H.Os. in the State in line with the guidelines set out to prepare panel of D.M. & H.Os. and propose the list of suitable candidates for issuing posting orders as D.M. & H.Os. The Screening Committee, accordingly, on appraisal of performance, need, necessity and suitability, has evaluated the list of D.M. & H.Os. and recommended the same to Government. Basing on such recommendations, Government has decided to issue posting orders to various persons as D.M. & H.Os. in the interest of administration, in the process, 3 rd respondent, who was promoted as Civil Surgeon (General Line), was posted as D.M. & H.O. at Tirupati, vide G.O.Rt.No.782, dated 21.12.2024. and recommended the same to Government. Basing on such recommendations, Government has decided to issue posting orders to various persons as D.M. & H.Os. in the interest of administration, in the process, 3 rd respondent, who was promoted as Civil Surgeon (General Line), was posted as D.M. & H.O. at Tirupati, vide G.O.Rt.No.782, dated 21.12.2024. The aforesaid exercise of transfers, promotions and also postings effected to persons from the cadre of Deputy Civil Surgeons to Civil Surgeons (General Line), has been done in most transparent and fair manner and the said process is not in any manner vitiated or affected by the pendency of W.P.No.15350 of 2023. The entire exercise of comprehensive review of working of all D.M. & H.Os. in the State was undertaken by the Government, who are critical functionaries in the District performing various statutory duties, in the larger public interest, therefore, petitioner cannot find fault with such administrative act of the Government and as petitioner holds transferable post, he has no legitimate right to continue in the same place. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the earlier transfer made by 1 st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.525, dated 23.06.2023, which was to accommodate one Dr.R.R.Reddy, Civil Surgeon, has been suspended by this Court in W.P.No.15350 of 2023, the respondents are precluded from once again transferring petitioner, which is in clear violation of interim order passed. He further contended that when there is ban on transfers, the 1 st respondent cannot effect any transfers contrary to the guidelines prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.75, Finance (HR.I-Plg. & Policy) Department, dated 17.08.2024. Lastly, he contends that the 3 rd respondent is not eligible to be promoted as D.M. & H.O., as he does not meet the criteria prescribed for such promotion. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 contended that as petitioner is holding transferable post, he has no vested right to continue at same place and at any rate, the impugned transfer order was issued on administrative grounds in relaxation of ban, which is not specific to the petitioner, rather seven officers have been transferred on general review. He further contended that petitioner was promoted as Civil Surgeon Specialist (Hospital Administration) under Category 3(c) in terms of the 2002 Rules, by considering his specific qualification i.e., M.D. (Hospital Administration), and posted him as CSRMO (Hospital Administration) at GGH, Kurnool, initially, and he is suitable to be posted in the cadre of posts and as in the State there are only three such posts, at KGH, Visakhapatnam, GGH, Guntur and GGH, Kurnool, due to lack of vacancy, he has been posted as D.M. & H.O., which is mismatch post and now in general review, the Government has considered him to be posted at KGH, Visakhapatnam, which is opt for him. He further contended that the transfers being effected are in pursuance to the recommendations of the Screening Committee, it cannot be said that petitioner has been targeted and victimised, at any rate, the judicial review in examining the orders of transfers is very limited and only when there is a violation of statutory provision or such transfer is persuaded by mala fides, the Courts have to step in. He placed reliance on Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar , [1991 Supp (2) SCC 659] ; Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests v. M. Jagadeesh Chandra Prasad , Judgment, dt.15.10.2019, in Writ Appeal No.325 of 2019 (AP HC) ; C.Narasimha Murthy v. State of A.P. , [ 2024 (1) ALT 514 = MANU/AP/1911/2023] and Sri Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 279] 8. Learned Government Pleader further contended that in so far as the contention that there is a ban on transfers, so, respondents could not have been transferred the petitioner is concerned, the very G.O.Rt.No.781, dated 21.12.2024, itself clearly states that such transfers are made in relaxation of ban and that too seven officers have been reshuffled on administrative grounds and in so far as finance concurrence is concerned, it is contended that as the transfers are effected after circulating the file to the Hon’ble Chief Minister’ Office and the finance concurrence was initiated already, the same being routine, the transfers have been effected on 21.12.2024, and later, the finance concurrence was accorded by G.O.Rt.No.784, dated 31.12.2024. Therefore, the same being only procedural cannot be a ground for invalidating the transfer. Therefore, the same being only procedural cannot be a ground for invalidating the transfer. He further contended that though initially this Court passed status quo order in W.P.No.15350 of 2023, later, the very said G.O. under challenge has been suspended, the same by itself cannot be construed as an injunction restraining the respondents from effecting transfers at later point. Lastly, he contended that there is no illegality in the promotion effected to the 3 rd respondent as Civil Surgeon (General Line) under Class-A of Category (3)(a) in terms of the 2002 Rules, in view of transfer of petitioner from Tirupati, in the said vacancy, 3 rd respondent has rightly been appointed, which is in accordance with law. 9. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 10. Petitioner initially appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon by direct recruitment and later promoted as Civil Surgeon Specialist (Hospital Administration) and was posted at GGH, Kurnool. He was later transferred from the said place as Joint Director at Mangalagiri and again as D.M. & H.O., Chittoor and on bifurcation of Districts, posted as D.M. & H.O., at Tirupati. There is no dispute that petitioner holds transferable post. On earlier occasion, 1 st respondent by G.O.Rt.No.525, dated 23.06.2023, has posted one Dr. R.R. Reddy, working as OSD to Hon’ble Minister, as D.M. & H.O., Tirupati, duly surrendering services of petitioner, and called upon to report before the Government. This Court in W.P.No.15350 of 2023, has initially ordered status quo on 28.06.2023 and later on, by order, dated 06.07.2023, suspended the aforesaid G.O., by reasoning that only to accommodate the said Dr.R.R. Reddy, at his place of choice, petitioner came to be transferred. That was an isolated act of transfer to accommodate person interested. Now, 1 st respondent has by impugned transfer order transferred various persons, relevant portion of which reads as under: “In the circumstances reported by the Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare, A.P., Mangalagiri in the e-file read above, Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby transfer and post the following Civil Surgeons who are working as District Medical and Health Officers in various Districts, on administrative grounds, in relaxation of ban on transfers :” (emphasis supplied) 11. Simultaneously, 1 st respondent also issued posting and promotion orders to persons, who have been promoted from Deputy Civil Surgeons as that of Civil Surgeons (General Line). Simultaneously, 1 st respondent also issued posting and promotion orders to persons, who have been promoted from Deputy Civil Surgeons as that of Civil Surgeons (General Line). In all, 21 Deputy Civil Surgeons have been promoted and issued posting orders, of which, the 3 rd respondent was also promoted and posted as D.M. & H.O., Tirupati. Petitioner challenges even the said promotion and posting order of 3 rd respondent on the ground that 3 rd respondent is ineligible to be considered for promotion. It is apparent that merely because the said person has been posted as D.M. & H.O., Tirupati, petitioner laid the challenge, otherwise, petitioner has no reason to challenge the aforesaid promotion as neither he is competing any seniority nor promotion of 3 rd respondent affected any of his other rights. Therefore, if the challenge to the transfer is decided, the challenge to the promotion of 3 rd respondent would render academic, as petitioner would not really be aggrieved by such promotion. 12. The law on transfers and judicial review by this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is well-settled. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents has laboured on referring to various judgments on this aspect. 13. In Shilpi Bose(supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court held, in para.4, thus: “ 4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is 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 mala fide. 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. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” 14. A Division Bench of this Court in Prl. 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. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” 14. A Division Bench of this Court in Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests v. M. Jagadeesh Chandra Prasad (supra) , held as follows: “…In cases of transfer, assigning a reason by the department is not necessary. It is further to observe that interference in the matter of transfer can be made if it is in violation of the statutory provisions of law, or tainted with mala fides or when it is passed affecting service condition or by way of penalty. Looking at the order of transfer, no exigencies are revealed, and no ground of mala fide is available as per the averments made in the petition. In that view of the matter, interference as made by the learned single Judge merely on the ground of non-spelling out the reason or, before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, the previous order of transfer of the petitioner was withdrawn, may not be a ground for interference, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 15. In Sri Pubi Lombi(supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court, after reviewing the entire law on the subject of transfers persuading judicial review held as under: “ 9. In the case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 , it is clearly observed by this Court that the scope of judicial review is only available when there is a clear violation of statutory provision or the transfer is persuaded by malafide, non-observation of executive instructions does not confer a legally enforceable right to an employee holding a transferable post. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “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……..” 9.1. 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……..” 9.1. Further, following the footsteps of S.L. Abbas (supra) this Court in the case of Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 held that the interference by the Court in an order of transfer on the instance of an employee holding a transferrable post without any violation of statutory provision is not permissible. 9.2. This Court further curtailed the scope of judicial review in the case of N.K. Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98 holding that the person challenging the transfer ought to prove on facts that such transfer is prejudicial to public interest. It was further reiterated that interference is only justified in a case of malafide or infraction of any professed norm or principle. Moreover, in the cases where the career prospects of a person challenging transfer remain unaffected and no detriment is caused, interference to the transfer must be eschewed. It is further held that the evidence requires to prove such transfer is prejudicial and in absence thereof interference is not warranted. The law reiterated by this Court is reproduced, in following words:— “9. Transfer of a public servant from a significant post can be prejudicial to public interest only if the transfer was avoidable and the successor is not suitable for the post. Suitability is a matter for objective assessment by the hierarchical superiors in administration. To introduce and rely on the element of prejudice to public interest as a vitiating factor of the transfer of a public servant, it must be first pleaded and proved that the replacement was by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was avoidable. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element in the impugned transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset. XXXXXXXXX “23. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element in the impugned transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset. XXXXXXXXX “23. …….Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” “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.” 9.3. The issue involved in the present case is somewhat similar in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2007) 8 SCC 150 wherein this Court in paragraph 8 has observed as thus:— “8. ….. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee……” 9.4. It is not tangential to mention that this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, (1990) 2 SCC 661 : AIR 1993 SC 2486 observed as thus:— “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………” 9.5. It is not tangential to mention that this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, (1990) 2 SCC 661 : AIR 1993 SC 2486 observed as thus:— “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………” 9.5. It is also imperative to refer the judgment of this Court in the case of Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited, (2013) 1 SCC 524 where it reiterated one of the pertinent principles of administrative law is that when allegations of malafide are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer. The relevant excerpt is reproduced as thus: “27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned……..” 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 malafide, (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 transferrable 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.” 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid law enunciated by various judgments, let us examine the facts of the present case. 17. Petitioner holds transferable post and is presently discharging duties as D.M. & H.O., Tirupati. Keeping in view the aforesaid law enunciated by various judgments, let us examine the facts of the present case. 17. Petitioner holds transferable post and is presently discharging duties as D.M. & H.O., Tirupati. On earlier occasion when his services were sought to be surrendered to Government to suit and accommodate person of choice, who was working as OSD to Hon’ble Minister, this Court in W.P.No.15350 of 2023, has come to the rescue of petitioner by initially ordering status quo and later suspending the impugned order of transfer therein. This Court is afraid to accept the contention of the petitioner that in view of the said interim orders, petitioner cannot be further transferred to any other place and the same tantamounts to violation of the interim orders passed. Petitioner has reaped the benefit of interim order in continuing the said place as another person was sought to be accommodated in the said place. But, facts now reveal that the petitioner is sought to be transferred now on general review, but, not an isolated act of transfer. There cannot be any permanent injunction on respondents not to transfer the petitioner, as the petitioner does not have any vested right to continue at the same place. Petitioner has not demonstrated or pleaded that the transfer effected is with mala fide intention or the same is in infraction of statutory provision. The submission made by the learned Government Pleader that as petitioner has been promoted as Civil Surgeon Specialist (Hospital Administration), under Class-A, Category 3(c) as per the 2002 Rules, on considering his specific qualification i.e. M.D., (Hospital Administration), he is competent and to be accommodated in the post and same cadre of Civil Surgeon Specialist (Hospital Administration), is all the more reason, respondents are justified in posting him as CSRMO, KGH, Visakhapatnam, merits acceptance. 18. On close scrutiny of impugned transfer order, makes it clear that transfers are effected to 7 officers, who all are working as D.M. & H.Os. on administrative grounds in relaxation of ban on transfers, therefore, when 1 st respondent has exercised its powers of transfer on the administrative grounds, petitioner cannot have any grievance, unless, it is pleaded and persuaded that the said transfer is effected because of mala fide act and prejudicial to the career of the petitioner. on administrative grounds in relaxation of ban on transfers, therefore, when 1 st respondent has exercised its powers of transfer on the administrative grounds, petitioner cannot have any grievance, unless, it is pleaded and persuaded that the said transfer is effected because of mala fide act and prejudicial to the career of the petitioner. The only substantive contention of the petitioner being that transfer has been effected when there is general ban and without finance concurrence, cannot be countenanced in as much as the 1 st respondent being competent is always empowered to relax the ban and effect transfers to adjust its administrative affairs and particularly, when respondents have undertaken mass transfers by transferring 7 officers under impugned transfer order and issuing posting orders on promotion to 21 officers under promotion and posting orders, it can safely be concluded that the transfers effected are in the larger public interest and administrative convenience of the State. Transfer of public servant appointed to a particular cadre of a transferable post from one place to another is an incidence of service and as no Government servant has legal right for being posted at a particular place, when transfers are effected in public interest and efficiency in public administration, this Court is not equipped to assess the need and necessity and personal management of the Governmental Departments, which is best to be left to the concerned departmental heads and State, however, subject to the limited judicial scrutiny, testing as to whether the aforesaid act is tainted by violation of statutory provision or vitiated by mala fides. 19. In the present case, neither of aforesaid exceptions would apply. The contention that there is no finance concurrence is neither here nor there, in as much as, the same being mere formality, in the present case, the 1 st respondent has secured finance concurrence by G.O.Rt.No.784, dated 31.12.2024, though after effecting transfer, which cannot be fatal to vitiate the transfer orders. This Court is satisfied that the impugned transfer order issued by 1 st respondent is clearly in furtherance to the object of better administrative needs and convenience of the State in larger public interest, as the post of D.M. & H.Os. in the State discharge crucial functions in the respective Districts performing pious duties in furtherance of public health. 20. This Court is satisfied that the impugned transfer order issued by 1 st respondent is clearly in furtherance to the object of better administrative needs and convenience of the State in larger public interest, as the post of D.M. & H.Os. in the State discharge crucial functions in the respective Districts performing pious duties in furtherance of public health. 20. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity or infraction of any statutory provision in issuing the impugned transfer order vide G.O.Rt.N;o.781, dated 21.12.2024, transferring petitioner and hence, is not inclined to accept the challenge. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid challenge to G.O.Rt.No.782, dated 21.12.2024, by which, 3 rd respondent has been promoted from Deputy Civil Surgeon to Civil Surgeon (General Line), along with others, only for the reason that he has been posted on promotion as D.M. & H.O., Tirupati. As this Court has found that petitioner has no legal right to continue as D.M. & H.O., Tirupati, and his transfer to KGH, Visakhapatnam, is justified, in the absence of any other competing interest between petitioner and 3 rd respondent, the challenge to the promotion is only academic and at any rate, petitioner otherwise is not aggrieved by such promotion, but for 3 rd respondent being posted at the aforesaid place, this Court does not propose to examine the correctness or otherwise of the 3 rd respondent’s promotion as Civil Surgeon (General Line). 22. In view of the aforesaid findings and subject to the other reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.