Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked by a Government servant against his transfer order dated 10th May, 2013 passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Director, Fisheries, U.P., Lucknow, whereby petitioner has been transferred from the office of Assistant Director, Fisheries, Bareilly to the office of Assistant Director, Fisheries, Maharajganj.

2. Short question, which arises for determination, is that what would be the effect of violation of transfer policy/executive instruction in the matter of transfer of officers and employees of the State Government. For this purpose, few facts, which would be relevant for considering the issue arises in the present case, may be set out.

3. The petitioner is an Assistant Fisheries Development Officer. In the year 2005 he was transferred to the office of Assistant Director, Fisheries, District J.P. Nagar and after about one year he was transferred to District Moradabad. In the year 2009 he was transferred from District Moradabad to District Pilibhit. After sometime, he was attached to the Assistant Director, Fisheries, District Shahjahanpur, from where he was again transferred to the office of Assistant Director, Fisheries, District Bareilly on 31st July, 2012. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred from the office of Assistant Director, Fisheries, District Bareilly to the office of Assistant Director, Fisheries, District Maharajganj, which is about 600 Kms. away from district Bareilly.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer of the petitioner is in violation of the transfer policy of the State Government as the petitioner has been transferred four times within a short span of time and he will reach his age of superannuation on 30th April, 2016. He has made several representations that his wife is seriously ill and she is undergoing treatment at Bareilly. He has filed several medical certificates in support of the said fact.

5. In the transfer policy of the State Government it is provided that officers of Group-A and Group-B, who have completed six years’ service in a district, shall be transferred and if they have completed ten years’ service in the same Division, then such officer may be transferred out of the Division after completion of 10 years. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred four times within a short span of three years and he has not completed 6 years in the district. It is also provided in the transfer policy that if an officer/employee has some personal difficulty like illness, education of children, etc., adjustment can be made. A copy of the transfer policy/executive instructions dated 18th April, 2013 of the State Government has been placed on record.

6. Legal position in the matter of transfer of Government servant is too well-settled to require any reiteration.

7. Before adverting to the core question of the case, I find it helpful to refer some decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue. From a perusal of those judgments, the principle, which emerges, is that a Government servant has no vested right to ask to continue at a place of his choice. Transfer is an incident of service. Government is the sole authority to take a decision regarding posting/transfer of an officer/employee in administrative exigency and in public interest. The Court cannot examine whether transfer is in public interest or not because it requires factual adjudication. The Court cannot act as an appellate authority and substitute its finding for that of the Government. There would be a chaos in the administration if Courts start interfering in the transfer matter in a routine manner.

8. Transfer of an officer/employee is inherent in terms of the appointment and in absence of its provision in the relevant Service Rule, it is implicit as an essential condition of service subject to contrary provision in the rule. Fundamental Rule 15 provides that “the Pres