Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The petitioner is working as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.D.A.’) since 21.7.2012, and is an employee belonging to class “C” category.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed in G.D.A. on 14.10.2004, prior to appointment as regular Junior Engineer, petitioner worked as daily wager/work charge Junior Engineer since 1988, thereafter, was transferred from G.D.A. to Bulandshahr Development Authority on 30.6.2008, lastly, the petitioner was transferred from Bulandshahr Development Authority to G.D.A. on 21.7.2012, since then, the petitioner is working in G.D.A.

3. On regular appointment on 14.10.2004, the petitioner became a member of the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services and is governed by the U.P. Development Authorities Centralized Services Rules, 1985.

4. By the impugned order dated 14.8.2014, the petitioner was transferred from G.D.A. to Lucknow Development Authority.

5. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the transfer order is in breach of the transfer policy of the State Government dated 4.6.2014 as amended for development authorities vide order dated 20.6.2014 for the year 2014-15, further, the impugned order is absolutely arbitrary and suffers from mala fide, as several officers and employees of U.P. Development Authority Centralized Services are working in G.D.A. for more than 10 years and are continuing there, the names of the officers have been mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, thus according to the petitioner, the policy of pick and choose was adopted by the respondents.

6. Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Arun K. Singh-I appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has relied upon the following judgments: T.S.R. Subramaniam and others v. Union of India and others, 2013(5) ESC 803 (SC) rendered in Maha Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 44234 of 2014.

7. Per contra, Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C.S. Singh, appearing for the State, Sri Nripendra Mishra, for the G.D.A., would submit that the transfer order was passed in public interest, further, this Court in Ved Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 61318 of 2013, has taken note of the fact that a large number of Assistant Engineers in various development authorities have stayed for more than six years in a particular development authority, thus, the State Government took a decision to transfer 101 Assistant Engineers from one development authority to another, similarly, more than 325 junior engineers working in different development authorities were transferred, these persons had completed more than 10 years as junior engineers. The petitioner as junior engineer has worked more than 21 years in G.D.A., thus, was transferred. In spite of, the petitioner working in Bulandshahr Development Authority for four years i.e. from 2008 to 2012. The transfer order was issued after due approval from the Hon’ble Chief Minister, as such, there is no illegality in transferring the engineers in the mid session.

8. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, in support of his submission, has relied upon State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras v. R. Perachi and others, (2011) 12 SCC 137 and Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the sole question for determination is as to whether the transfer policy/guideline confers any right upon the petitioner to continue at a particular place of posting merely other employees are continuing.

10. As regards the law, in the matter of transfer of Government Servants/servants of the statutory body is well-settled to require any reiteration.

11. In the case of Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Divisi