The main legal point established is that transfer orders for government servants can only be interfered with by the courts in limited circumstances, such as violation of statutory rules, mala fide reasons, or orders by an incompetent authority.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

Petitioner, working as Assistant Accounts Officer in Finance Department of J&K State, is aggrieved of Order No. 108-Acctts. of 2016, dated 7th April 2016, issued by Director General, Accounts and Treasuries, Finance Department-respondent no. 2 herein, whereby he has been transferred from PW (R&B) Division Chadoora to the office of Additional Director, Sericulture, Srinagar, Kashmir. He is also aggrieved of Order No. 01-CHD of 2016-17, dated 11th April 2016, whereby petitioner has been relieved and directed to report his new place of posting.

2. The aforementioned orders have been thrown to challenge on the ground that petitioner has been singled out in terms of impugned transfer order, which is based on favouritism and nepotism and based on mala fide and that the impugned order has been passed in violation transfer policy notified in Government Order No. 195-F of 2010, dated 24th June 2010.

3. Heard and considered.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner during course of argument refers to Rajendra Roy v. Union of India and another [AIR (SC) 1236 (1993)] and Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi v. U.P. Jal Nigam and others [(2003) 11 SCC 740], to contend that impugned transfer order is based on mala fide and in violation transfer policy contained in Govt. Order No. 195-F of 2010, dated 24th June 2010.

5. Shorn off details and discussions relating to case set up by petitioner in writ petition on hand, it would be appropriate to say that trite law on subject is that transfer is an incidence of service and government servant is subject to orders of transfer on administrative exigencies. A government servant cannot insist that he is entitled to continue in a particular station/post for a definite period. Interference in the orders of transfer by the Courts are very limited i.e. only on three grounds orders of transfer can be interfered, namely, if the order of transfer is passed in violation of any statutory rule, or on mala fide reasons or by an incompetent authority.

6. According to learned counsel for petitioner impugned transfer order is violative of transfer policy and guidelines. So far as plea of petitioner with regard to transfer policy is concerned, the same is not sustainable for the reason that the transfer policy promulgated by Government is an executive order, having no statutory flavour, as such, cannot be enforced by way of writ of mandamus. Policy decisions of the Government are in the shape of executive instructions and Government, in peculiar facts and circumstances, is well within its competence to modify or debate in the interest of administration, unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of Statutory provisions, prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine.

7. The order impugned, as is discernible from its bare perusal, is general order effecting transfers of other officials as well, as such, cannot be called to be either mala fide or arbitrary and it is for the employer to decide as to whether services of a particular employee can be better utilized and the Courts cannot substitute their opinion in this regard.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Prabhakar v. State, 2014 (3) JKJ 346 [HC] has observed that the transfer policy is in the nature of non-statutory administrative instructions and does not create any enforceable right.

9. In State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, it has been held that transfer is prerogative of authorities concerned and the Courts should not normally interfere therewith. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraphs 7 and 8 hereunder:

"7. It is too late in the day for any Government Servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as