ORDER Dr. T.N. Singh, J .-1. Though respondents were noticed and they have shown cause, this petition has yet to be admitted. We heard counsel on the question of admission. Other applications there are, like I.A. No.II/87 for recalling the Advocates appeared-interim writ and I.A. No. III/87 for taking a rejoinder on record; and there is also document filed today by the petitioner. We have considered everything which has come before us today on record. But, we have taken view that there is no merit in this petition and it has to be dismissed in limine for reasons to follow. 2. Indeed, it behoves us to reiterate once again the settled law lest there lingers any misconception about it. Transfer of a government servant from one place to another place in exigency of service is rather a condition of the service by which he must abide; there is no right in him to object to his transfer unless that action is challenged as mala fide. This is because a mala fide action is always deemed to be non-est in law and the constitutional conclusion of Article 14 would kill such arbitrary action which would have no nexus with the object of exigency of service which it purported to serve. This position of law is projected in the decision of their Lordships in Shami Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director AIR 1981 SC 1577 and also in the Bench decision of this Court in Santosh Kumar 1986 CCLJ-SN 50 3. Although Shri Arun Mishra, petitioner's counsel, has relied on B. Varadha Rao (1986) 4 SCC 13 we do not read anything therein to take the view that law is judicially changed and it is not what is stated in Shanti Kumari (supra). There are indeed certain observations in para 6 of the report in Varadha Rao's case but those are also indicative of Government's duty to act bona fide. It was held that Government should be more careful when making an order of transfer in case of Class-III and Class IV employees. Further, there should not be "frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers" as that would result in uprooting a family and causing irreparable harm to a Government servant which may drive him to desperation. The moot point, however, is that the petitioner drew a blank in that case despite the observations aforesaid and the petition was dismissed as meritless. Further, there should not be "frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers" as that would result in uprooting a family and causing irreparable harm to a Government servant which may drive him to desperation. The moot point, however, is that the petitioner drew a blank in that case despite the observations aforesaid and the petition was dismissed as meritless. Their Lordships stated explicitedly that transfer is an implied condition of service and unless there was an arbitrary action such as when the power was abused, an order of transfer per se made in exigencies of service in public interest cannot be challenged. 4. The facts which are vocal have to be noted in this case because of the view we have taken in the matter. It is not a case in which we would be justified to put the State in the dock for uprooting the family of the petitioner by frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable orders of transfer. The position indeed is that the petitioner's substantive place of posting is behind and from there, on his own request, he was attached to the police of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department at Gwalior and that was done to take care of petitioner's difficulties which he has repeated in the representation that he had filed, which is as Annexure P-9. At Gwalior, he is serving for over 21/2 years and now he is being moved, no doubt to a distant place. 5. But the question is, why the Slate cannot act in public interest and exigencies of service and to be bound to take care only, and parenially, of the grievance of a single public servant. Indeed, the affairs of the State must be properly managed so that there is no stalmate in administration and not serious and irreparable harm is caused to public interest. We must observe that "work-culture" has to be promoted and every public servant has to be so motivated as to serve the State devotedly and diligently in a manner that he can discharge his Constitutional duty in that regard and this can happen only when he does not make any unreasonable demand as may harm public interest. Article 16 is not be read as conferring right only on a public servant allowing him to abuse the "equality of opportunity" guaranteed thereunder. Article 16 is not be read as conferring right only on a public servant allowing him to abuse the "equality of opportunity" guaranteed thereunder. The fundamental right indeed is to interdict any State-action against abuse of power by which a public servant is denied "equality of opportunity" in the matter of his employment but the public servant cannot complain if himself abuses the right contemplated under Article 16 by denying others "equality of opportunity" and by claiming all benefits for himself treating it as his property to the detriment of other employees and public interest. Indeed, in Chandrbhan's case AIR 1983 SC 803 his Lordship Chinnappa Reddy, J. has cautioned against the tendency to treat equal opportunity to public employment as property right: "It is natural wealth to be shared equally by all citizens". Indeed, the right guaranteed under Article 16 is not to give any public servant licence to produce stal mate in public administration to the detriment of public interest and to encourage him to infringe his Constitutional duty contemplated under Article 51-A (j) whose mandate to all citizens including a public servant is to so act "that the national rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement", in other words, to cultivate work culture. 6. The basis of the petitioner's main grievance, however, is entirely different. He has challenged the action of the respondents as mala fide on the ground that impugned order of his "attachment" to the office at Itarsi was not made in the exigency of service but on a complaint made by some unauthorised busy body who has to do nothing with the affairs of the department in which the petitioner is serving. True, same annexures to the petition are there to suggest that there was an inquiry against petitioner's lack-luster performance at the behest of some person but, in our opinion, that cannot be accepted as the cause or basis for the impugned order. Annexure P/8 shows that the police reported in petitioner's favour and not of his involvement in any criminal activity to make him an undesirable element to be retained at Gwalior. There is no nexus at all between the police enquiry and petitioner's transfer, 7. Annexure P/8 shows that the police reported in petitioner's favour and not of his involvement in any criminal activity to make him an undesirable element to be retained at Gwalior. There is no nexus at all between the police enquiry and petitioner's transfer, 7. Suffice it to say that vague allegations of mala fide would not avail the petitioner in such a case as was stressed in Santosh Kumar (supra) wherein it was held, the prime-mover must be impleaded to enable him to answer the allegations which must be made in clear and specific terms. In Tarachand AIR 1977 SC 567 it was held that to establish malus animus all necessary particulars must be stated so that the Court may successfully carry out an investigation into the allegations and that in the absence thereof the petition may, even be dismissed in limine. We have no hesitation to hold that when allegations of mala fide are made, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish nexus between the offensive act and the consequences that ensued therefrom directly, producing as a direct result thereof the impugned order. It is, indeed, for that purpose that all necessary facts to establish a nexus must be pleaded and the author of the insidious act, in other words, the prime-mover engineering the desired result thereof must also be impleaded. In the instant case, these requirements are not at all satisfied. 8. In the reply to the rejoinder there is a clear and categorical statement of the respondents that the petitioners services are required at the Training Centre at Tawa Project, Tawa Nagar, Itarsi, Distt. Hoshangabad for administrative reasons in the exigency of service. He is to be taken there as a temporary measure because there exists "an acute need of a stenographer". It is further stated that "as soon as the work in the office of the Director Oriental Training Centre, Tawa Project, Tawa Nagar, Itarsi, Distt. Hoshangabad is over, the petitioner would be posted back to his present place of posting". It is beyond our comprehension how any complaint can be made against such an order as no transfer but a temporary "attachment" in the exigency of service is contemplated though the petitioner has to move from Gwalior to Tawa Nagar, Itarsi and stay there for some time. 9. It is beyond our comprehension how any complaint can be made against such an order as no transfer but a temporary "attachment" in the exigency of service is contemplated though the petitioner has to move from Gwalior to Tawa Nagar, Itarsi and stay there for some time. 9. Two more objecting are pressed by Shri Arun Mishra in the course of his arguments with which we have to deal with and indeed, in that connection, we have also heard Shri Jain, who has appeared for the State. While Shri Jain reiterates that the order has not been made with mala fide intention and the Government stands by the assurance quoted above he asserts further that the petitioner’s post being a state cadre post his “attachment” any-where within the state cannot be irregular or illegal. In reply to the second objection he confirms that necessary traveling allowance would be paid to the petitioner for the journey mad both ways and the petitioner would not be made to suffer financially. 10. The petition, accordingly, is dismissed in limine as we are satisfied that the impugned order is neither illegal nor mala fide and the fact really is that in view of the specific stand taken by the state in this Court, which we have recorded in this order, the grievance is misconceived. ad-interim writ goes automatically and as such I.A. No. II/87 in that regard is allowed. As prayed, certified copies of this order be given to both the counsel on payment of usual charges.