JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Dr. Dhannaram has challenged the Order Ex. 7 dated 28 12. 19 8, by which, the petitioner has been transferred from Rajaldesar to Chandan in District Jaisalmer as Incharge Veterinary Hospital and in his place, Dr. Mahesh Prakash Gupta (respondent No. 3) has been transferred from Chandan to Rajaldesar in District Churu as Incharge, Veterinary Hospital, Rajaldesar.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: that earlier, the petitioner was posted as Veterinary Doctor in Ratangarh for the past about 12 years THEreafter, he was transferred from Ratangarh to Sadri in District Pali vide Order Ex. 2 dated 27. 2. 1988 THE petitioner did not join his duties at Sadri and proceeded on medical leave upto. 21. 5. 1988. He joined back his duties at Ratangarh after his transfer order Ex. 2 was kept in abeyance. THEreafter, vide Order Ex. 4 dated 8. 8. 1988, the petitioner was again transferred from Ratangarh to village Chandan in District Jaisalmer and he again proceeded on leave. He made representations to the Govt. and thereafter, his transfer order from Ratangarh to Chandan was cancelled and he was transferred back to Rajaldesar vide Order Ex. 6 dated 30 9. 1988. THE petitioner resumed his duties at Rajaldesar and while he was working there, he was again transferred from Rajaldesar to village Chandan in District Jaisalmer vide Order Ex. 7 dated 28. 12. 1988, which is under challenge in this writ petition. The grounds on which the petitioner has avoided these transfer orders are that he has a large family settled at Ratangarh having six children beside his wife and mother aged about 94 years. It is alleged that his wife has been recently operated. This operation took place way back on 12. 11. 1987 and she was discharged from the Hospital on 18. 12 1987. She was operated for hystarectomy. The petitioner has further submitted that his mother is sick for the last many years and he is the sole member in the family to look after her. According to the petitioner, he is going to retire within two years and so, as per the policy of the Govt. , he cannot be transferred from his present place of posting. The petitioner has also submitted that his children are reading at Ratangarh and his transfer at this juncture will adversely affect their studies. It was on the basis of these grounds that the petitioner made representations to the Govt. and on two occasions, his transfer orders were cancelled but after his transfer to Chandan from Rajaldesar vide Order Annexure-7 dated 28. 12. 1988, the Government has refused to accept his contentions and, therefore, he has come before this Court in this writ petition. As per him this transfer order has been made to accommodate respondent No. 3 and, therefore, it is per-se illegal. Moreover, he has complained that respondent No. 3 after his transfer from Rajaldesar to Chandan has not joined at Chandan and has managed to got his transfer order cancelled and thereafter, joined his duties back at Rajaldesar. No return has been filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan but respondent No. 3 has filed a return. He has submitted that all the grounds taken by the petitioner to got himself transferred back to Rajaldesar are wrong, false and based on mis-statement and suppression of facts. He has submitted that petitioner's wife was operated on 12. 11. 1987 and she was discharged from the Hospital on 18. 12. 1987. She cannot have any problem to move out of Ratangarh at this juncture. He has further submitted that the petitioner's mother is not residing with him but she is residing at Bikaner with his youngest brother. It was also submitted that the transfer orders of the petitioner i. e. Ex. 2, Ex. 4 and Ex. 7 have not been passed within two years from the date of his retirement. It has been contended by respondent No. 3 that the petitioner has four sorts and two daughters. His eldest son who is aged about 30 years has gone in - adoption. to his maternal grand father and lives with him in Haryana. His second son aged 25 years is serving in Air Force. The third son of the petitioner is aged about 22 years and is serving in some private concern outside Ratangarh. The youngest son of the petitioner is aged about 19 to 20 years and is undergoing final year course of I. T. I. at Ratangarh. Petitioner's two daughters have been married and they have two children each. He has, therefore, submitted that all the grounds that have been alleged by the petitioner for avoiding his transfer are either based on mis--statement of facts or suppression of material facts. According to him, the contention of the petitioner that he was serving without any complaint also is wrong because there were lot of complaints against him while he was working at Ratangarh. It was submitted that the petitioner issued a wrong certificate to one Bhagirath son of Kamrudeen alleging that his horse has died. Actually, it was a mare which has died and he has issued this certificate without conducting the postmortem examination of its carcass. The petitioner was warned by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jaipur to be careful in future in such matters. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts before this Court, and, therefore, he cannot claim any equitable relief from this Court. We have heard Mr. M. L. Shreemali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. K. Singhal, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 as also Mr. R. P. Dave, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate, It is a settled law that the transfer is a normal incident of service. It is not usually justiciable unless it is shown that it was actuated or any malafides, dishonesty malice or has been made in colourable exercise of power for extraneous purposes or considerations or for accommodating the third party in contravention of the guidelines for transfer prescribed by the Govt. In this respect, our attention was drawn to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Shanti Kumari V. Regl. Dy. Director, Health (1) wherein it has been observed that transfer of a Govt. servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons. The Courts cannot interfere in such matters.
(3.) THE 'exigencies of service' came up for interpretation before their lordships of the Supreme Court in K. B. Shukla V. Union of India (2) wherein it has been held: "it is true that formation of opinion by the Central Govt. as to the 'existence of exigencies of the Service' requiring appointment by such method, as a pre-requisite for the exercise of the power. But the formation of such opinion is a matter, which in view of the particular nature of the function and the language of the provision, has primarily been left to the subjective satisfaction of the Government. In deed, it is as it ought to be. THE responsibility for good administration is that of the Government THE maintenance of an efficient, honest and experienced administrative service is a must for the due discharge of that responsibility. THErefore, the Govt. alone is a best suited to judge as to the existance of exigencies of such a service requiring appointments by transfer. THE term 'exigence' being understood in its widest and pragmative sense as rule, the court would not judge the propriety or sufficiency of such opinion by objective standards, save where the subjectc-tive process of forming it is vitiated by malafides, dishonesty, extraneous purpose or transgression of the limits circumscribed by the legislation. " It is, therefore, clear that satisfaction of the existence of exigencies of service is not open to judicial scruting except when it is vitiated by malafides, dishonesty, notice, colourable exercise of power or extraneous purpose or consideration. It has been observed in Nanak Chand Khanna vs. Union of India (3) by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court that the order of transfer is purely administrative and the law does not require the authorities to indicate the reason or considerations, which impel them to make a transfer. In Ilyas Ahmed V. The Station Director, All India Radio, Hyderabad (4) it has been held that judicial review or justifiability is permissible if the order of transfer is made in mala fide exercise of power or vitiated by hostile discrimination thereby rendering the action ultra vires and attracting the inhibitions enshrined in Arts 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. R. P. Dave, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate has submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed malafide, dishonestly, or for extraneous purpose, There is no allegation of even hostile discrimination. He has submitted that earlier, the representations sub-mitted by the petitioner were considered by the Govt. and his transfer orders were put in abeyance or cancelled but when it was brought to the notice of the Government that the facts disclosed by him for avoiding his transfer are wrong, it did not pay head to his representation and transferred him from Rajaldesar to Chandan due to some exigencies of service There is nothing in this order which may either be characterised as malafide or it can be said that it has been passed for some extraneous purpose and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be sustained. ;