Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) G. K. Tandon, petitioner, alleges that he was a Stenographer in the office of the Judicial Commissioner. Ajmer, in the grade of Rs. 80--5--120--10/2--220. taut his services were transferred to the office of the District Judge, Ajmer, by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, on 2nd March, 1951. Thereafter by an order of the Judicial Commissioner dated 31st May, 1952, the lien of his previous post was also transferred. The petitioner made certain representations to the Judicial Commissioner as his chances of future promotion were likely to be affected by his transfer to the office of the District Judge, and subsequent transfer of his lien. These representations were rejected at first by order of the Judicial Commissioner dated 1st February, 1955, and later on by order of the Judicial Commissioner dated 12th July, 1956, who declined to reopen the previous decision without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner thereafter thought that his transfer may have been due to any adverse entry in his character roll, and made an application to the District Judge to afford him a copy of any adverse entry that may have been made in his character roll. The District Judge supplied a copy on 4th August. 1956, of one such entry dated 31st March, 1951. The petitioner has now come to this Court and his prayer is that the orders of transfer of the petitioner from the office of the Judicial Commissioner to the office of the District Judge as also the order of transfer of the lien may be declared to be illegal, void, inoperative and unconstitutional, that he may be directed to be taken back in the office of the Judicial Commissioner, that he should be appointed Registrar in the grade Rs. 200--10--300. and that a direction be given for deletion of the adverse entry. The grounds urged in support of the application are: 1 that no transfer of a lien could be made under the Fundamental Rules without the consent of the Government servant concerned, and 2. that he has been reduced in rank by the aforesaid transfer. It is urged that the adverse entry in the Character Roll referred to above, had been made without affording an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such entry, and the said entry was at the bottom of the transfer, and it was by way of punishment. A copy of the Fundamental Rules was supplied by the petitioner. We, however, find that Fundamental Rule 12-A read with Fundamental Rule 15 authorises the transfer of a Government servant from a permanent post in any service or department to a permanent post in any other service or department so as to abolish the lien on the original post and to create a lien on the new post. This interpretation is also found in the clarification made by the Government of India in its memorandum No. 75/55/ests. (a) dated 24th March, 1955, a copy whereof has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure B. It is explained in this Circular that such permanent transfer from one service or department to another service or department can be made, irrespective of the wishes of the Government servant concerned. The transfer of the petitioner from the office of the Judicial Commissioner to the office of the District Judge as also the transfer of the lien is thus fully in accordance with the Fundamental Rules governing the service of the petitioner. Learned counsel urged that in this Government Circular certain instructions have been given in paragraph 3, which have not been followed. It is urged that in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 3, it is laid down that if services of an officer are needed in a post outside the parent service or department, it is usually sufficient to arrange for his , deputation for a limited period. These instructions are in the nature of advice and do not detract from the authority conferred on the officer, authorised to transfer an employee, by the Fundamental Rules. The order of transfer from the office of Judicial Commissioner to the office of the District Judge, produced by the petitioner as Annexure A, as also the order of transfer of lien, Annexure M, do not show that the transfer of the petitioner as also of his lien was made as a matter of any punishment. There is of course no reduction in the emoluments by the transfer, for the order of transfer clearly mentions that Mr. Tandon is to remain in the same grade Rs. 80-3200. There has been, therefore, no reduction in rank, and certainly the transfer does not appear to have been made as a punishment. Learned counsel relied on Kashinath Patnaik v. Sri P. K. Kapila, AIR 1952 Orissa 285 (A ). But that case is distinguishable, for the transfer distinctly involved reduction in pay and grade of the petitioner. It was next urged that at any rate under the rules relating to the employment of Government servants, an adverse entry should be_ intimated to the employee, so that he can submit any explanation. The recording of an adverse entry is not protected under Article 311 of the Constitution, and. therefore, it need not be considered whether there was justification for the entry or whether intimation of the entry is required to be given to the petitioner, or what should have been done in the matter. This petition has no force, and is accordingly dismissed in limine. . ;