SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 20. 7. 91 passed by Director Ayurved Department, Rajasthan, Ajmer by which he has been transferred from Bharatpur to Sawaimadhopur.
(2.) BRIEFY stated the case of the petitioner is that he was transferred by order dated 27. 12. 89 from Baden to Bharatpur Chikitsalaya and he joined his duty on 30. 12. 89. Since then he is working in 'a'grade Hospital, Bharatpur. He is a heart patient and has been operated on 20. 7. 79 at All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. He has been advised for regular medical check up in the cardio clinic at New Delhi. He has also been advised to get himself regularly checked up at District Level Hospital and according to him he is being regularly checked at the District Hospital, Bharatpur. Notwithstanding this requirement of his health, the petitioner has been transferred from the 'a' Grade Hospital Bharatpur to Ayurved Dispensary, Surwal, Sawaimadhopur. At that place no facility for treatment of heart patient is available. The petitioner has assailed the order of transfer on the ground that the same has been ordered in violation of the Government Policy declared vide circular dated 28. 6. 90. He has stated that there is no administrative reason and no public interest is involved in passing of the order of transfer. The transfer has not been made in good faith. He has also raised the plea of discrimination by stating that other person namely Shri Tara Chand has been posted on deputation at Bharatpur due to his father's illness but despite his illness, the petitioner has been shifted. The respondent No. 2 has chosen to file reply to the writ petition. In his reply he has stated that there has been no breach of the transfer policy. The order of transfer has been passed due to administrative exigency. Surwal Ayurved Dispensary is situated at 7 to 8 KM from Sawaimadhopur. Sawaimadhopur is also a district like Bharatpur and the petitioner can easily get medical facility at Sawaimadhopur. The respondent No. 2 has stated that the petitioner does not want to leave Bharatpur. He has remained posted in District Bharatpur since June, 1987. He was transferred to 'a' Grade Hospital Bharatpur from Gutoli (Alwar) in June, 1987 by order dated 26. 6. 87. That order was issued at his own request. By order dated 30. 9. 89 he was transferred from Bharatpur to Baden but just after 3 months of stay at Baden he got himself posted back at 'a' Grade Hospital at Bharatpur. Respondent No. 2 has stated that according to the Government Policy, husband and wife are required to be posted in case both are serving under the Government. The respondent No. 2 and his wife both are serving in Ayurved Department and in terms of Government Policy both of them have been posted at Bharatpur. Moreover, the respondent No. 2 has got better qualifications than the petitioner. He is a post graduate in Ayurved and according to Government Circular dated 27. 12. 89 post graduate Ayurved Chikitsaks are to be posted in 'a' Grade Hospitals. Shri Garg learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the transfer of the petitioner is malafide and is arbitrary. There has been clear violation of Government Policy of not transferring an employee before the expiry of a period of two years of his posting at a particular place. Moreover, the Government has not taken care of the health requirement of the petitioner. before passing the impugned order. Shri Pareek on the other hand argued that the petitioner has been serving at Bharatpur for last 4 years and therefore, there could not be justification in the contention raised on his behalf that he had been transferred within 2 years of his posting. Shri Pareek has submitted that the petitioner has deliberately concealed facts regarding his posting at Bharatpur since June, 1987. He further submitted that there is no evidence of any serious ailment of the petitioner at present. In my opinion the writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner has come with a case that he has been shifted within 2 years of his posting at Bharatpur and that there is a breach of the Government Policy contained in the circular dated 28. 6. 90, while doing so the petitioner has not disclosed to the Court that he was transferred Bharatpur by order dated 26. 6. 87 on his own request. He remained at Bharatpur for 2 years and 3 months. Then he was posted at Baden which is a place very near to Bharatpur. Even that was got cancelled by the petitioner on his own request and he was posted back at 'a' Grade Hospital Bharatpur by order dated 27. 12. 89. This shows that the petitioner has stayed at Bharatpur for almost 4 years before being posted to Surwal (Sawaimadhopur ). The petitioner should have placed all these facts before the Court while making claim that he has been shifted in breach of the Government policy of transfer. When the petitioner has availed the posting of Bharatpur on his own request, it cannot be said that any injustice has been done to him if he has been transferred after a period of 4 years stay at Bharatpur. Conduct of the petitioner in not disclosing this fact to the Court disentitles him from seeking any relief in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. If court had been made aware of the fact that the petitioner had remained at Bharatpur for almost 4 years before passing of the impugned order, the Court may not have granted interim order in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) MOREOVER, a violation of transfer policy simpliciter does not have the effect vitiating the order of transfer. The transfer policy of the Government contained in administrative instructions does not have the force of law. Neither any legal right is created in favour of a government servant nor any, government servant can claim that any of his legal right is infringed if transfer is made in breach of such policy. Violation of administrative transfer policy cannot be a ground for quashing of the order of transfer unless there are other circumstances showing arbitrariness in the exercise of power of transfer. lt will be sufficient to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar (1) and Ram Charan Das vs. State of Rajasthan (2 ). Plea of the petitioner about his ailment is also not convincing. True it is that the petitioner was operated in the year 1979 but there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner requires any such medical aid which warrants his posting at Bharatpur only. Nothing has been placed on record to show as to what type of treatment is required to the petitioner after 1. 9. 85. In any event in respect of his personal in convenience on account of health ground the petitioner can always appraoch departmental authority for his posting at a place where medical facilities are available according to his requirement. As already mentioned hereinabove there is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. . ;