Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. The validity of the Telangana Teachers (Regulation of Teachers) Rules, 2018, notified in G.O.Ms. No.16, School Education (Service II) Department dated 06.06.2018 (the “2018 Rules” for short), is questioned in these Writ Petitions as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, 243G and 371D of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 read with the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, apart from being contrary to the judgments in M. Kesavulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2003 (6) ALD 522 (DB) and Government of A.P. v. P. Vema Reddy, 2007 (3) ALT 287 (DB) : 2007 (4) ALD 209 (DB) and the interim order of status quo passed in W.P. No.23267 of 2017 and W.P. No.23274 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017. A consequential direction is sought to strike down the Rules notified in G.O.Ms. No.16 dated 06.06.2018.

2. The petitioners herein are either teachers working in Government schools, or teachers hitherto working in Government schools who are presently working in schools under the control of local bodies, or teachers appointed to and working in schools run by local bodies. They are aggrieved by the action of the State Government in effecting transfers, and in prescribing the Rules, notified in G.O.Ms. No.16 dated 06.06.2018, for effecting transfers of Headmasters, teachers etc in Government schools and schools under the management of local authorities throughout the State of Telangana. As the validity of the 2018 Rules, which provides for transfer, has been questioned on various grounds, it is necessary in the first instance to examine the scope of Judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in matters relating to transfers.

3. The scope of interference by Courts, with orders of transfer of a Government servant or an employee of a public sector undertaking or a local body, is extremely limited. Transfer of an employee, appointed to a class or category of transferable posts, from one place to another, is an incident of service necessary in public interest and efficiency in public administration. No government servant or an employee or a local authority has a legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or at a place of his choice. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey, (2004) 12 SCC 299; Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 227; Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath, (2004) 4 SCC 245; National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574. Transfer of a public servant, on administrative grounds or in public interest, should not be interfered with unless there are strong and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper and unjustifiable. Chief General Manager, (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 2 SCC 532. Who should be transferred, and posted where, is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any operative guidelines or Rules, Courts should not, ordinarily, interfere with it. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, (supra); Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357; Major General J.K. Bansal, (supra); Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169.

4. A government servant, or an employee of a local body, has no legal right to insist on being posted at any particular place. A person holding a transferable post, unless specifically provided in his service conditions, has no choice in the matter of posting. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, (supra). Unless there is a term to the contrary in the contract of service, a transfer order is a normal incidence of service. Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, (2004) 3 SCC 172. In a transferable post, an order of transfer is a normal consequence, and personal difficulties are matters for considerat