THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23294 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.23295 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.23416 OF 2009, AND WRIT PETITION No.23420 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER : The petitioners in all these writ petitions are working as Managers with the Food Corporation of India at different places in the Andhra Pradesh region. By order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent, they were transferred and posted to Karnataka region. Since all the writ petitions are filed with a common prayer to declare the said order of transfer as arbitrary and illegal, they are heard together and decided by this common order: As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioners had initially filed W.P.No.14931 of 2009 challenging the impugned order of transfer dated 1.6.2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 23.07.2009 permitting the petitioners to submit their detailed representations to the Chairman & Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India on or before 31.07.2009 and thereafter the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed within a period of two months. This Court also directed that till such time the petitioners shall be continued in Andhra Pradesh Region. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners made representations before the 1st respondent herein. However, the 1st respondent by order dated 25.9.2009 rejected the representations of the petitioners thereby confirming the transfer order dated 1.6.2009. Hence, these writ petitions to declare the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India, and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 1.6.2009 transferring the petitioners from A.P. Region to Karnataka Region has been assailed primarily on the ground that the same is contrary to the Guidelines dated 18.10.2002 governing Inter-Regional transfers. It is also contended that the 1st respondent committed an error in rejecting their representations without proper appreciation of the objections raised and that the reasons given by the 1st respondent in his order dated 25.09.2009 are untenable. It is also alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 2nd respondent had adopted pick and choose policy in transferring the petitioners to Karnataka Region and that the action of the 2nd respondent in retaining some of the similarly situated employees in A.P. Region manifests that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. It is to be noticed that under the transfer order dated 1.6.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent altogether 22 officers were transferred from A.P. region to Karnataka/Kerala regions. In the order itself, it was mentioned that the transfers were effected on administrative need basis. The 1st respondent while rejecting the representations of the petitioners, found that the transfers are effected on necessity basis to deficit regions like Karnataka where there is acute shortage of manpower. It was also found that the impugned transfers were effected in the interest of the Corporation in view of the administrative exigencies and that the same are not in contravention of the policy guidelines as alleged by the petitioners. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is explained that the petitioners are continuing in A.P. Region since 1976. It is also stated that the petitioners were among the 52 officers who were promoted as Managers on 22.12.2008 on regular basis. In the year 2008, twenty-two (22) officers were transferred to Karnataka Region i.e., from Sl.No.30 to 52 of the promotees. Since there is dire need of manpower in Karnataka region and acute shortage still continues, the 2nd respondent was constrained to transfer the other promotees also including the petitioners herein under the impugned order dated 1.6.2009. The allegation of the petitioners that some of the officers were retained in A.P. region and that the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy in implementing the Inter-Regional transfers, has been categorically denied. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating that the impugned transfer was contrary to the Guidelines dated 18.10.2002 governing the Inter-Regional transfers, vehemently contended that even according to the 1st respondent since the Guidelines dated 18.10.2002 were followed while effecting the impugned proceedings the respondents are bound to act in strict compliance with all the provisions of the guidelines. It is true that as per the Guidelines, dated 18.10.2002 the priority should be given to those officers who are not moved out of their Home State even once or those who have been retained even after securing a promotion in their Home State. The Guidelines also provide that the officers who have already rendered service in States other than the Home State shall not be disturbed until and unless it is found absolutely necessary to do so. However, it is the specific case of the respondents that the impugned proceedings were effected in terms of the Guidelines dated 18.10.2002 and there is no violation of the guidelines as alleged by the petitioners . It is also relevant to note that when the very same contention was raised by the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation, this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the 1st respondent by making detailed representations. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners made their representations and the 1st respondent having reviewed the whole dispute, found that the allegations made by the petitioners are without any basis. In the circumstances, I am unable to hold that the impugned order of transfer suffers from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The law is well-settled that the transfer of an employee is only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment and such an order warrants no interference unless it is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or in violation of any statutory provisions or where the order is found to be without jurisdiction. As noticed above, none of the above grounds could be made out by the petitioners in this writ petition. Even assuming that the impugned order of transfer is made in breach of the guidelines dated 18.10.2002, as held by the Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P. v. GOBARDHAN LAL[1], it is not a valid ground for interference by this Court as such guidelines do not confer any legally enforceable right on the petitioners. It is also relevant to notice the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the above decision: “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 surprises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.” Admittedly it is not the case of the petitioners that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of any statutory provision. Except a vague averment that the impugned action which is discriminatory is followed from a mala fide intention, no specific allegation of mala fides is made against any one of the officers of the Corporation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have been working in A.P. Region from the year 1976 and thus they have been staying for more than 33 years in the same region. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 13.11.2009 gbs [1] (2004) 11 SCC 402