JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Tahsil Beena to Tahsil Shahgadh.

2. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner is that it is a frequent transfer case, but the document Annexure P/2 reflects that it was an absorption order of the petitioner and pursuant to the same she was posted. She has been transferred on an administrative exigency for the first time by the impugned order. It is submitted that a representation (Annexure P/3) has been filed showing personable inconvenience which is pending consideration. An innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondents/authorities to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously.

3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner's transfer is on administrative grounds and as the transfer is a service condition; therefore, the petitioner is duty bound to comply with the transfer order. Virtually, no ground has been raised except the personal inconvenience which would be caused to the petitioner. As per settled legal proposition of law, the transfer order can be interfered only in exception circumstances as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal , reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 has held as under :

"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 an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.

8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and c