RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) WRIT Appeal No. 2 of 1986 is preferred against the order dated 4-12-1985 made by Doddakalegowda, J. in Writ petition No. 19310 of 1985 dismissing the writ petition. This Writ Appeal was directed to be heard along with Writ appeal Nos. 703 and 707 of 1983 as the questions arising were similar. The principal question in the appeals is whether an order of transfer of a Government servant, made by an authority other than the Government itself, is appealable before Government under rule 19 of Karnataka Civil Services (C. C. A.) Rules (C. C. A. Rules for short ). ( 2 ) WRIT Appeal Nos. 703 and 707 of 1983 arise out of a common order dated 19-4-1983 made by Rama Jois, J in Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1982 holding, inter-alia, that the petitioner had a right of appeal to Government under the said Rule 19 against an order of transfer writ Appeal No. 703 of 1983 is by the Commissioner of Transport. Writ appeal No. 707 of 1983 is by the petitioner in the writ petition who considers himself aggrieved by the rejection of certain other reliefs sought by him in the writ Petition. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 707 of 1983 was unrepresented at the hearing. Learned Government Advocate submitted that the said appellant may not be interested in pursuing the appeal since he has been given a posting in bangalore during the pendency of the appeal. Writ Appeal No. 707 of 1983 is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the appeal filed by the state, namely Writ Appeal No. 703 of 1983 survives for consideration since the State desires to pursue the matter to test the correctness of the view taken by rama Jois, J. in W. P. 7942/82 as to the amenability of an order of transfer to an appeal under the said Rule 19. Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1982 was filed by One T. G. Sreenivasa Rao challenging the order of the Commissioner for Transport, Bangalore, dated 5-12- 1981 transferring the petitioner who was working as a Stenographer in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Trans- port, to the R. T. O's Office at Bijapur. This order was the subject-matter of an appeal before the Government preferred under Rule 19 of the C. C. A. Rules. This order was the subject-matter of an appeal before the Government preferred under Rule 19 of the C. C. A. Rules. By endorsement dated 28-1-1983, the Government rejected the appeal on the ground that the said order of transfer was not appealable under Rule 19 of the c. C. A. Rules. Both the order of transfer and the endorsement issued by the Government were challenged in the said writ Petition. Rama Jois, J. by his order dated 18-4-1983 allowed the Writ Petition in part; held the appeal maintainable under rule 19 and directed the State Government to dispose of the appeal preferred by the Petitioner in accordance with rule 19 of the CCA Rules on its merits. ( 3 ) SO far as the appellant-Varadha rao in Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1986 is concerned, he is a Senior Labour Inspector in the Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka and was transferred to Tarikere by order dated 1-8-1983 made by the Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka. He filed an appeal purporting to be one under Rule 19 of the c. C. A. Rules before Government questioning the order of transfer on several grounds including the one that the order was malafide. That appeal was dismissed by the Government by its order dated 26-11-1985 holding that no appeal against an order of transfer was maintainable under Rule 19 of the C. C. A. Rules. This order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ petition No. 19310 of 1985. By an order dated 4-12-1985 Doddakalegowda, j. dismissed the writ petition and held that the view of the Government as to the maintainability of the appeal was correct. Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1986 is filed by the said Varadha Rao, against the said order of the learned single judge. There is, thus, a divergence of opinion between the two learned single judges as to the maintainability of the appeal. ( 4 ) SRI Chandrasekhariah, learned government Advocate, was heard for the State, which is the appellant in Writ appeal No. 703 of 1983 and Varadha rao, appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1986 argued his case in person. There is, thus, a divergence of opinion between the two learned single judges as to the maintainability of the appeal. ( 4 ) SRI Chandrasekhariah, learned government Advocate, was heard for the State, which is the appellant in Writ appeal No. 703 of 1983 and Varadha rao, appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1986 argued his case in person. Learned Government Advocate urged that the view taken by Rama Jois, J. that an order of transfer is appealable under Rule 19 of the C. C. A. Rules, is erroneous and urged that no appeal is contemplated under the Rules against such an order of transfer. On the other hand, he sought to support the view taken by Doddakalegowda, J. in Writ petition No. 19310 of 1983. Learned government Advocate largely relied upon the language of Rule 19 itself in support of his contentions. His submission was that 'transfer' is not a condition of service and a Government- servant has, therefore, no right of appeal against an order of transfer under the said Rule 19. Learned Government advocate submitted that having regard to the scheme of Rules 17 to 25 in Part v of the C. C. A. Rules which provides for appeals against the orders referred to therein, an appeal is contemplated only against an order imposing penalty thereunder or against an order which varies the conditions of service of a Government-servant to his disadvantage. Appellant-Varadha Rao, however, sought to support the view of Rama jois, J. and has also relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay high Court in Seshrarao Nagorao Umap v state of Maharashtra and others, reported in (1985) LLJ at Page 73. ( 5 ) THE question that arises for consideration in these appeals, therefore, is: whether an order of transfer varies to the disadvantage of a Government servant any of his "conditions of service" attracting an appeal under Rule 19 of the C. C. A. Rules, 1957? ( 5 ) THE question that arises for consideration in these appeals, therefore, is: whether an order of transfer varies to the disadvantage of a Government servant any of his "conditions of service" attracting an appeal under Rule 19 of the C. C. A. Rules, 1957? the relevant portion of the said Rule 19 provides: "19 Appeal against the order- (1) every member of any of the Services mentioned in rule 5 shall be entitled to appeal to Government against the order passed by a subordinate authority which- (a) denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, pension or other conditions of services as regulated by any order, rules or by agreement, or (b) interprets to his disadvantage the provisions of any such order, rules or agreement where by his pay, allowances, pension or other conditions of services as regulated by any order, rules or by agreement, or (2) (Omitted as unnecessary) the answer to the question raised in the appeals turns on the point: whether an order of 'transfer' varies to the disadvantage of a Government servant, any of the conditions of service. Part IV enumerates the nature of penalties imposable on a Government servant. Rule 17 of the Rules enumerates the orders against which no appeal lies. Under Rule 18 of the Rules an appeal is provided from an order passed by an authority imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 8. Rule 8 specifies the nature of penalties that may be imposed on Government servants, such as. (i) fine; (ii) Censure; (iii) withholding of increments ; (iii-a) withholding of promotion ,- (iv) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused ; (iv-a) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for specified period with further directions ; (v) reduction to a lower time scale of pay; (vi) compulsory retirement; (vii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, and (viii) dismissal from service. These penalties are imposable against a Government servant where disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him under the Rules, by the competent authority. Rule 18 of the C. C. A. Rules, therefore, provides for appeals against the orders imposing penalties referred to and specified in Rule 8. Such an appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate authority designated under the Act. Rule 18 of the C. C. A. Rules, therefore, provides for appeals against the orders imposing penalties referred to and specified in Rule 8. Such an appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate authority designated under the Act. Under Rule 19 (i), a Government servant is entitled to prefer an appeal against an order which denies or varies to his disadvantage, his pay, allowances, pension as regulated by any order, rules or by agreement. The disadvantage which may ensue on account of any order which may be passed by a sub-ordinate authority is referrable to and has relation to his pay, allowance and pension, etc. , or any other like condition of service under Rule 19 (1) (b ). The point is, whether 'transfer' pertains to and affects conditions of service falling within the description of 'other conditions of service occuring in Rule 19 of the CCA Rules. Parts IV and V of the Rules read together provide for penalties that may be imposed under Rule 8 in the disciplinary proceedings taken under the Rules, and other orders referred to in Rule 19 and for appeals to the competent authority as specified. If an order of transfer does not amount to an order of penalty or 'any other order' falling within under Rule 19, it follows that such an order does not attract and is not appealable either under rule 18 or Rule 19. ( 6 ) TRANSFER is always construed and understood as an incident of service. Any alteration in the conditions of service must result in prejudice to the government servant and some disadvantage touching his pay, allowance, pension, seniority, promotion, leave etc. As soon as a person enters the service of the State, he is entitled to seek enforcement of the conditions of service against the State if they are sought to be interfered with or interpreted to his disadvantage. Correspondingly, the Government is under an obligation to apply and implement all conditions of service in accordance with the law. In the absence of statutory provisions, administrative-instructions issued in exercise of executive powers govern both the state and the Government-servant. Transfer of a Gove nment-servant who is appointed to a particular cadte of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. Transfer of a Gove nment-servant who is appointed to a particular cadte of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. Transfer of a Government servant is made in the exigencies of administrative necessity and in the interest of public service. That a Government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a feature and incident of government service. No Government, servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferable post. ( 7 ) THE expression "conditions of service" means, all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a person from the time of his appointment till his retirement and even beyond it, in matters like salary,, promotion, leave, seniority etc. , (vide - AIR 1967 supreme Court 2049 - /. N. Subbareddy v. Andhra University) But the transfer of a Government-servant in g transferable post doas not pertain to any condition of service and an order of transfer is therefore one which may be made within the exclusive administrative domain of the Government. It does not involve any condition of service as such. The supreme Court has reiterated this position in shantikumari v. Regional Deputy director, Health Service, Patna Dn. (AIR 1981 S. C. 1577), that Courts should not interfere with transfer of a Government servant which is ordered in the exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons. ( 8 ) IN the Hindustan Lever v. The workmen- A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 17-dealing with transfer of a workman from one department to another, the Supreme court observed that such a transfer was governed by Standing Orders Act, 1946, which provided for the transfer of an employee from one department to another at the discretion of the Manager, provided that the terms and conditions of service are not adversely affected. ( 9 ) IN Lachman Dass v. Shiveshwarkar and Others-A. I. R. 1967 Punjab 76, khanna J. , of the Punjab High Court (as he then was) dealing with the challenge to an order of transfer made by a Railway official transferring him from Delhi to Ferozepore, observed:"the main question in the present case, which has been argued, is about the validity of the order transferring the petitioner from Delhi to Ferozepore division. ""it is not disputed that the post to which the petitioner has been transferred carries the same scale of pay as the post of Manager Catering which was held by the petitioner before the enquiry. As such I find that there was no legal bar to impugned order of transfer being made in respect of the petitioner in the exigencies of service. "one other decision which is directly on the point and rendered by a Division bench of this Court is Primary Co-operative land Development Bank Ltd. , v. State of Karnataka (ILR 1986 Kar. 427 ). The division Bench was dealing with the challenge to Sec. 128a of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, relating to the constitution of Common Cadre authority. Repelling to contention against the power to transfer its employees by the Common Cadre Authority under Section 128a, the Division Bench upheld the power as valid and necessary in the public interest. It was observed :"a transfer is only an incident of service and is not even a condition of service. If the provisions empowering the creation of CCA is valid, then it necessarily follows that authority which becomes the appointing authority in the place of original appointing authority of the banks must have power to transfer its employees from one bank to another bank. We cannot on any principle hold that the same contravenes Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. (emphasis supplied) appellant-Varadha Rao sought to distinguish this case on the ground that that it did not concern a Civil post under the State. The distinction sought to be made rests on insubstantial grounds. Even otherwise, there is no difference in principle. " ( 10 ) WE may now advert to the reasoning of the learned single Judge in allowing W. P. No. 7942 of 1982. Learned Judge said: "a Government servant has no right to say that he should be retained in a particular place. Even otherwise, there is no difference in principle. " ( 10 ) WE may now advert to the reasoning of the learned single Judge in allowing W. P. No. 7942 of 1982. Learned Judge said: "a Government servant has no right to say that he should be retained in a particular place. In other words, transfer-ability from place to place in public interest is a condition of service. But if an order of transfer is made mala fide or contrary to the norms laid down by the State Government in an executive order, it is open to the civil servant concerned to prefer an appeal to the State Government and it is appropriate that the Government ' should redress the genuine grievance of any such civil servant. (See; sh'anti Kumari v Regionat Deputy director- AIR 1981 SC 1577 ). In fact, that the norms laid down to regulate transfers are not enforceable by means of a petition under Article 226 is no ground to say that it is not a condition of service at 'all and, therefore, no appeal lies under Rule 19 of the Rules. In fact, in large number of writ petitions filed by civil servants directly before this Court, submissions have been made on behalf of the State Government that petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the State Government and such petitions have been dismissed on the ground that they had an alternative remedy. " the learned Judge proceeded to hold further :"therefore, the position is, that while no writ petition can be entertained against an order of transfer on the ground that it is made in violation of the executive orders laying down the norms for transfer, an appeal lies to the Government either on the ground that the norms laid down by it had been violated by any of its subordinate authorities or was made mala fide and it is open to and it is appropriate for the Government to redress the grievence if it is a genuine one as observed by the Supreme Court in Shanti kumari's case supra. "with respect, we find ourselves unable to agree with the reasons adopted and the conclusions reached by the lear- nedjudge on the point. "with respect, we find ourselves unable to agree with the reasons adopted and the conclusions reached by the lear- nedjudge on the point. The norms enunciated by Government for the guidance of its officers in the matter of regulating transfers are more in the nature of guidelines to the officers who order transfers in the exigencies of administration than vesting of any immunity from transfer in the Government servants. It is, no doubt, true that if the power of transfer is abused, the exercise of the power is vitiated. Abuse vitiates any power. It is one thing to say that an order of transfer which is not made in publicinterest but for collateral considerations and with oblique motives is vitiated ; but an altogether different thing to say that such an order of transfer violates any condition of service, express or implied, and makes the order of transfer appealable under Rule 19. To say that a Government servant is entitled not to be transferred except in public interest and that such an immunity from arbitrary transfer is a condition of service is, merely, giving expression to the doctrine, of abuse in a negative formulation. This, indeed, is to press the negative aspect to the point of extinction of the positive. Such a converse proposition cannot be escalated to the level of a condition of service, express or implied. Suffice it to say that we are bound by the ruling of the Division Bench in p. L. D. Bank's case. ( 11 ) STRONG reliance was placed by varadha Rao on the decision of the bombay High Court in S. N. Umap v. State of Maharashtra-1985 (2) LLJ Page 73. There the petitioner, a Medical officer, challenged the order of his premature transfer on the ground of malafides. Their Lordships held on facts that the impugned order was issued in colourable exercise of power and was mala fide. Their Lordships referred to a passage in E. P. Royappa v. State of tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 and held on the facts that the order was bad. They said :"the observations of the Supreme court equally apply to the policy regarding the transfers of public servants. It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. They said :"the observations of the Supreme court equally apply to the policy regarding the transfers of public servants. It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to a istribute and utilise the services of its employees. However this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers, cannot, but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed pur pose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, that is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair. Frequent unscheduled and unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to the employee and drive him to desperation. It disrupts the education of the children and leads to numerous other inconvenience and problems and results in hardship and demoralisation. Therefore, the policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to every body equally. It cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not conducive to good administration. It creates vested interests. " the above extract, read as a whole, means that even in purely administrative matters such as transfer,. the constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness comes into play and that any action of the Government which is shown to be arbitrary and mala fide, is bad. While holding that transfer in public service is an incident of service, it was stated that "it is also an implied condition of service and the appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter". While holding that transfer in public service is an incident of service, it was stated that "it is also an implied condition of service and the appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter". On a correct reading, this only means that 'transfer' is an implied condition of service in the sense that a Government servant who is appointed to cadre of transferable posts is amenable to transfer from place to place and cannot claim a right to stay in one place through out his career. An order of transfer gives effect to this implied condition and is consistent with and not derogatory to such a condition. The conditions of service that Rule 19 envisages is different. The condition of service - an order varying which to the disadvantage of the Government servant is appealable under Rule 19 -must be such as to create a right in the Government servant and a conesponding legal obligation on the State as employer. An abuse or misuse of a power of transfer may otherwise vitiate the exercise of the power; but such an abuse or misuse cannot, by itself, be said to vary any condition of service to the disadvantage of the Government servant. There may, yet, be cases where even an order of transfer might be said to vary a condition of service to the disadvantage of the Government-servant attracting Rule 19. A case of an order of transfer of a person appointed to a particular non- transferable post is an instance in point. But the present cases are not such. ( 12 ) INSTANCES are not wanting where the Courts have interfered with orders of transfer in cases where malafides or collateral motives are shown to have actuated the order. Courts may interfere with" an order of transfer only if the order is arbitrary or constitutes a fraud on power or is an outcome of mala fides or made to give discriminatory preference to others. We may mention here that no such allegations are made by the appellant Varadha Rao in his petition. Courts may interfere with" an order of transfer only if the order is arbitrary or constitutes a fraud on power or is an outcome of mala fides or made to give discriminatory preference to others. We may mention here that no such allegations are made by the appellant Varadha Rao in his petition. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, appellant-Varadha rao in W. P. No. 14084 of 1983 had challenged this very order of transfer on two grounds: (i) that the transfer was not made in public interest but was vitiated by mala fides : (ii) that the order was violative of the provisions of Rules 12 and 85 of the CCA Rules, and was therefore, illegal and ultravires. A single-Judge by order dated 2-1- 1985 rejected both the grounds and dismissed the writ petition. Against the said order, a Writ Appeal in W. A. No: 756 of 1985 was filed. The Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the matter is concluded against the appellant-Varadha Rao so far as these aspects are concerned. ( 14 ) IN the result. Writ Appeal No. 2/86 fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. With respect we hold that the view taken by Doddakalegowda, J. is correct. Writ Appeal No. 703 of 1983 filed by the Commissioner for Transport is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1982 dated 19-4-1983 is set asids w. P. No. 7942 of 1982 is dismissed. 'as respondent in W. A. No. 703 of 1983 has not contested the appeal and has remained absent, there will be no order as to costs. As stated earlier, W. A. No. 707 of 1983 is dismissed for non-prosecution. "order ON oral APPLICATION UNDER ART. 134a of THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR grant OF A CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS to APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT: appellant in W. A. No. 2 of 1986, which was one of the appeals disposed of on 26-5-1986, had argued the matter in person. He submits that he was not aware of the date of pronouncement of the judgment, as the cause-list issued was not available to him and that the oral-application made today be held to have been made ''immediately" after the pronouncement. This prayer is not opposed. 2. He submits that he was not aware of the date of pronouncement of the judgment, as the cause-list issued was not available to him and that the oral-application made today be held to have been made ''immediately" after the pronouncement. This prayer is not opposed. 2. We are of the opinion that these appeals do not involve any substantial question or questions of law of general importance needing to be decided by the supreme Court. Accordingly, certificate sought for is refused and the oral application rejected. " --- *** --- .