SAXENA, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal has been directed against the order dated 2. 03. 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2372/1992, whereby petitioner's writ petition challenging his transfer order dated 16. 4. 1992 (Anncx. 6) was dismissed.
(2.) THE appellant, who is a Ranger Grade-I (Gazetted), was transferred by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (in short PCCF), Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) by office order dated 24lh March, 1991 (Annex. 5) from the post of Range Officer, National Desert Park, Jaisalmer to the post of Range Officer, Forest Range, Balesar, District Jodhpur. THEreafter the PCCF vide office order dated 16. 4. 1992 (Anncx. 6) in the public interest transferred the appellant as Range Officer, Barmer in National Desert Park. THE appellant filed a writ petition challenging the impugned transfer order Annexure-6 on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and without authority being in violation of the guide-lines issued by the State Government dated 23. 9. 1989 (Annex. 1) as no prior approval of the State Government was obtained. THE appellant also contended that he was transferred to accommodate Shri Mahendra Singh Rathore (respondent No. 3) under the political pressure of (he then Energy Minister. THE learned Single Judge after hearing the parties observed that the impugned transfer order did not suffer from any vice and more so it was purely an administrative matter, which did not warrant any interference. THErefore, the learned Single Judge found the writ petition merit-less and accordingly dismissed the same. Hence, this appeal. We have heard Shri K. N. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M. S. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Caveator respondent No. 3 at the admission stage and perused the relevant record. The first contention of Shri K. N. Joshi is that the order of learned Single Judge is non-speaking and the same has been passed without application of mind and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed. We are not at all impressed by this argument, because the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that he was satisfied that the impugned transfer did not suffer from any vice more so it was purely an administrative matter and that writ petition was merit-less. Hence, it is abundantly apparent that the impugned order is not cryptic but a speaking order, which has been passed with due application of mind. Therefore, the first contention of the appellant fails. The next contention of Shri K. N. Joshi is that the petitioner was working as Range Officer, Forest Range, Balesar since March, 1991 and had not completed 2 years of service tenure, that as per allocation of duties and responsibilities between the PCCF and CCF vide State Government's letter dated 23. 9. 1989 (Annex. 1), the transfer/posting of Rangers Grade-I, (Gazetted), who have been at one place of posting for over two years' period will be done by the PCCF and in case of less than two years' period, the PCCF will seek prior approval of the State Government. According to him, the PCCF did not procure the prior approval of the State Government in passing the impugned transfer order. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is unauthorised and without jurisdiction. According to him as per endorsements made in Annexure-6, the impugned transfer was made in compliance of the U. O. note dated 28. 2. 92 of the Forest and Environment Minister, Rajasthan, Jaipur. This fact amply proves that petitioner's transfer was made due to political pressure. He has cited ihe following cases Narpat Singh Rajpurohit vs. State of Rajasthan (1),b. S. Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors. (2), Satya Narayan vs. Stale of Rajaslhan & Ors. (3) and Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India & anr. (4 ). On the other hand, Shri M. S. Singhvi has strenuously contended that the PCCF is the appointing authority for the Rangers Grade-1, that the alleged guide-line of transfer docs not have any statutory force and as such the same is not enforceable in the court. He has submitted that the power of the PCCF can not be curtailed or fettered by administrative instructions by allocating the duties and responsibilities between the PCCF and CCF. Hence, the impugned transfer order (Annex. 6) is not at all without jurisdiction. He has submitted that even the impugned transfer order was ratified by the Stale Government by its order dated 19. 5. 1992 (Annex. R/3 ). According to him, the impugned transfer order has been made in public interest, that the appellant has no vested right to remain at a particular place and the allegations of mala fide or political pressure are clearly vague and without foundation. He has relied on following cases Ghisu Lal vs. The Union of India (5), S. Ganguly vs. Union of India & Ors. (6) and Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (7 ).
(3.) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before us. Admittedly the appellant and respondent No. 3 are Rangers Grade-I (Gazetted) and members of Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service. Rule 2 (a) of the Rajasthan Forest subordinate Service Rules, 1963 lays down that "appointing authority" means the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/chief Conservator of Forest and includes a person, who is authorised by him as per Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 to make appointments to Forest Subordinate Service posts. There fore, PCCF (respondent No. 2) is the appointing authority of Rangers Grade-I. The appointing authority has the power to transfer the Ranger Grade-I under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. It is true that the State Government vide its order dated 23. 9. 1989 (Annex. 1) has allocated duties and responsibilities between the PCCF and CCF and it has been mentioned that the transfer/posting of Rangers Grade-I (Gazetted), who has been at one place of posting for over two years will be done by the PCCF and that in case of less than two years period, the PCCF will seek prior approval of the State Government. The allocation of duties and responsibilities between the PCCF and CCF is merely an administrative instruction/order and it does not have a statutory force. Therefore, simply because the PCCF did not procure the prior approval from the State Government, it can not be held that PCCF had no jurisdiction to transfer the appellant vide order Annexure-6 or that the impugned order was unauthorised, illegal or without jurisdiction. It is needless to mention that such guide-lines have no statutory force and are not enforceable particularly at the instance of the affected officer. The allocation of duties and responsibilities incorporated in Annexure-1 do not create any vested right in the appellant and he is not entitled to rely on those instructions to challenge the impugned transfer order. In B. S. Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors. (cited supra), it was held that policies framed by authorities for procedural fairness, even if not having statutory force, are binding and that it should be followed to avoid arbitrariness and in the interest of fair play in making appointments. In that case the policy required publicising the vacancies before appointment. Evidently that was not a case of transfer. Therefore, the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable and the same does not render any assistance to the appellant. In Narpat Singh Rajpurohit's case (cited supra) the petitioner, a Ranger Grade-I, was earlier working at Phalodi. However, on account of his family circumstances, on his request, he was transferred vide office order dated 13. 9. 1989 to Bajju in District, Bikaner, where he joined his duties on 26. 9. 1989 and was working there. However by another order dated 29. 9. 1989, the PCCF cancelled his earlier transfer order dated 13. 9. 1989. The contention of the petitioner was that since he had already joined at Bajju in pursuance of order Ex. 1, he could not be transferred unless the permission was sought from the State Government be cause he had not completed two years' tenure. It was held by Hon'ble Justice Mr. J. R. Chopra that since the petitioner had already joined his duties at Bajju in pursuance of earlier transfer order dated 13. 9. 1989, the said order had been executed, therefore, the same could not be cancelled and that a fresh transfer order had to be issued. It was also observed that no transfer could be made during election period and that even if the respondents wanted to transfer the petitioner then such transfer order could be made after election process was over. However, in the head notes edited and published in WLR 1991 (Raj.)-136 (supra), it appears that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have been incorporated. In Narpat Singh's case the learned Single Judge has not opined that when the executive instructions/guide- lines laying down certain guide-lines regarding transfer have been issued by the Government, it is not open to the State not to follow those guide-lines or instructions and to act in disregard of such instructions. It was also not decided by the learned Single Judge that any act in disregard of such instructions can be challenged and it would be open to scrutiny by the courts. The learned Single Judge has also not held that since no permission from the State Government was obtained, the impugned transfer was illegal. The learned Single Judge has also not held in that case that premature transfer to accommodate another person should usually be taken as illegal and that maladies do not necessarily mean dishonesty or bad faith and that it means a fraud on power. As a matter of fact these were the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on which the learned Single Judge has not given his findings. Therefore, the head notes A,b,d, & E edited in WLR 1991 (S) Rajasthan 136 (supra) have been wrongly reported and those did not bear the approval of the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, the facts of Narpat Singh's case are clearly distinguishable. ;