ORDER : 1. The State of West Bengal challenges the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, whereby the Division Bench directed that respondent No. 1 herein, an Assistant Professor posted at Ghatal Rabindra Satabarsiki Mahavidyalaya, Paschim Medinipur, to be transferred to a vacant post at Sree Chaitanya College, Habra, which is in close proximity to her parental home. 2. The State of West Bengal has challenged this order on the ground that such directions could not have been issued in exercise of writ jurisdiction through a writ of mandamus, commanding the State Authorities to transfer an individual from one place to another. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jaideep Gupta, has submitted that it is a well-settled legal principle in such matters, that transfer, being an exigency of service is neither a matter of right nor choice, and courts are generally slow to interfere in transfer matters unless there is a violation of law/service rules or if the transfer or non-transfer of a person itself suffers from the vice of mala fides. 4. In the present case, the respondent did not challenge any transfer order issued by the State but instead directly sought a writ of mandamus from the High Court, seeking a direction to the concerned authorities that she be transferred from Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur to Habra, North 24 Parganas in the State of West Bengal. 5. The reasons cited for such a transfer are that respondent No. 1 has been teaching Philosophy at Ghatal Rabindra Satabarsiki Mahavidyalaya since November 2016 and resides at her parental home at Maslandapur, North 24 Parganas, which is approximately 165 kms. away from the college. As a result, she faces significant hardship in commuting and is unable to adequately take care of her elderly ailing parents. In support of her plea, she relied on Rule 3 of the West Bengal Colleges (Transfer of Employees) Rules, 2017.[3. Conditions for transfer of own seeking:- (1) An employee shall be eligible for transfer of his own seeking only if he has been confirmed in service, and has completed 5 (five) years of satisfactory and continuous service in a college from which he seek transfer: Provided that the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Conditions for transfer of own seeking:- (1) An employee shall be eligible for transfer of his own seeking only if he has been confirmed in service, and has completed 5 (five) years of satisfactory and continuous service in a college from which he seek transfer: Provided that the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing. allow an employee for transfer of his own seeking not completing five years, considering the exigencies of the situation and hardship of the employee on special ground, but such prayer shall not be allowed, if the employee concerned is on probation: (2) No application under transfer of own seeking shall be entertained if the employee concerned seeks a transfer to a college situated within a distance of 25 (twenty-five) Kilometres from present place of posting: Provided that the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow employees for transfer under this rule within the prescribed distance, considering the exigencies of the situation and hardship of the employee on special ground, but under no circumstances, such prayer shall be allowed, if the employee concerned is on probation. (3) The benefit of transfer under this rule can be enjoyed only once in the whole service life and if the employee concerned fails to join the post on transfer, he shall forfeit his right of seeking a transfer under this category] 6. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, dismissed the respondent's writ petition by an order dated 24.04.2024, observing that academic interests of the college, where the respondent is posted, would be hampered if she is transferred to any other college. Further, the learned Single Judge referred to Rule 2 of the West Bengal Colleges (Transfer of Employees) Rules, 2017 which states that transfer under the rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the grant of transfer is contingent upon the 'larger academic interest of maintaining a healthy and efficient higher education system'. Hence, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the respondent failed to make out any case justifying her transfer from her original place of posting at Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur to any other place or college. 7. The respondent then filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the respondent failed to make out any case justifying her transfer from her original place of posting at Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur to any other place or college. 7. The respondent then filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, upon calling for details of existing vacancies, found that a vacancy existed at Sree Chaitanya College, Habra and consequently issued a writ of mandamus, directing the authorities to immediately issue a transfer order on the application for transfer filed by the respondent. 8. Undoubtedly, the High Court's decision was based on equity and consideration of alleged hardships raised by the respondent. However, we find that such an order should not have been passed by the Court under the present facts of the case and moreover, it is in the teeth of the settled law on transfer matters. It amounts to direct interference in policy matters and administrative decisions based on policy, which on the face of it are neither discriminatory nor violative of any law. 9. Respondent is an Assistant Professor in Philosophy in a Degree College. An appointment to a Degree College is to that College alone and normally transfers are not made of teaching faculty. This is reflected from Rule 3 of the Rules. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 referred to above states as under :- "(3) the benefit of transfer under this rule can be enjoyed only once in the whole service life and if the employee concerned fails to join the post on transfer, he shall forfeit his right of seeking a transfer under this category." 10. Rule 3 is an enabling provision for the authorities under which transfer can be made and the eligibility given. All the same, Rule 3 clearly shows that a transfer can be enjoyed only once in the entire service life. In other words, transfers are not made as a matter of routine. 11. The only grievance of the respondent is that she resides in her parental home, which is 165 kms away from her workplace and, therefore, seeks a transfer to a location closer to her parental home. Such difficulties are commonplace and can be faced by anyone. If transfers were granted on these grounds, it would be very difficult for the authorities to manage an institution. Such difficulties are commonplace and can be faced by anyone. If transfers were granted on these grounds, it would be very difficult for the authorities to manage an institution. This Court, in Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148 has observed that personal difficulties of an employee pertaining to his/her place of posting, is a matter for consideration of the concerned department. In the present case, we find that not only has the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal considered the respondent's application seeking transfer, but has also passed a reasoned order dated 16.10.2023, rejecting the same. It was stated therein that if the respondent is transferred from her place of posting at Paschim Medinipur to any other location, without any immediate possibility of posting a substitute against that vacancy, then the pupil-teacher ratio, which stands at 1:182 would become 1:242 and would significantly hamper the academic interests of the students where respondent No. 1 is presently posted. 12. It is a well-settled principle of law that the Courts have a very minimal scope to interfere in matters of transfer. An interference in matters of transfer is only warranted, when there is a clear element of mala-fides or clear violation of law. Further, the power of judicial review vested with a Court ought not to be exercised to interfere with a policy decision taken by the employer regarding grant or non-grant of transfer. [See S.K. Naushad Rahman vs. Union of India (2022) 12 SCC 1 ] 13. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal rejecting the respondent's request for transfer was based on administrative exigencies and, being a policy decision, could not have been interfered with by the High Court. Thus, there was no scope for the High Court to have issued a direction to the authorities for the issuance of a transfer order in favour of respondent No. 1 herein. Consequently, the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. 14. The Civil Appeals stand allowed, accordingly. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.