The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of transfer can only be challenged if it is made mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order of transfer dated 8. 8. 2001 by which the petitioner was transferred from district Chandauli to lucknow and was attached with the office of Transport Commissioner. U. P.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was previously working as Incharge Assistant Regional Transport Officer at varanasi but he was transferred to the headquarters at Lucknow on 20. 4. 2001. On 15. 6. 2001, he was again transferred as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Chandauli. By the impugned order dated 8. 8. 2001, he was transferred to Lucknow and was attached to the headquarters.

( 3 ) SRI. T. P. Singh has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred several times within a brief period which was contrary to the policy and the guidelines laid down by the State government by the Government Order dated 21. 4. 2001, a copy of which has been filed as annexure-9 to the writ petition. The Government Order lays down the guidelines which have to be followed in the matter of transfer of Government employees and paragraph 6 thereof provides that as far as possible, no transfer order should be passed after 15. 6. 2001. It appears that this policy has been formulated keeping in view the academic session in the institutions in the State which normally begin in the first or second week of July. The power of the Court to interfere with an order of transfer of a Government servant in a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution has been considered by the Apex Court in Mrs. Shlipi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, and para 4 thereof reads as follows : "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 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-today 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 over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. " in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, (1992) 1 SCC 306, the Court after considering the effect of the guidelines issued in the matter of transfer observed as follows :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. . . . . " the effect of the guidelines were again considered in Union of India v. S. L. Abbas, AIR 1993 sc 2444. and after taking note of the aforesaid observations made in Bank of India v. Jagjit singh Mehta, (supra), the Court held as follows in para 10 of the reports : "the said observations in fact tend to negative the respondents contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the respondents contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer if any of the administrative instructions/ guidelines are not followed, much less can it be characterised as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned