MILAP CHANDRA, J.— This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.9.88 (Anx. 6) passed by the Director, Rajasthan State Seeds Certification Agency (Respondent No. 1) (hereinafter to be called the Director) cancelling his previous order dated14. 9. 88 (Anx. 3), transferring the petitioner to Jodhpur and also for quashing the order dated 20.9.88 (Anx. 5) by which Rs. 13.20P spent in postage, have been deducted from his pay. The facts of the case may be summarised thus. 2. The petitioner is an Assistant Seeds Certification Officer of the respondent No, 1. He was transferred from Sheoganj to Suratgarh by order dated Aug. 18, 1988 (Anx. 1). He submitted representation (Anx. 2) dated August 22, 1988 to the Director for his transfer to Jodhpur on the ground that his mother has recently died, his father has retired, from the Government service and is not keeping good health, he has to look after his seven younger brothers and sisters at Jodhpur, being the elder brother and Suratgarh is at a far distant place from Jodhpur. The order (Anx. 1) was modified and the petitioner was transferred to Jodhpur in place of the respondent No. 2 and the latter was transferred to Suratgarh vide order dated 14 9.88 (Anx 3) The petitioner reported on duty at Jodhpur on September 17, 1988 and sent his joining report (Anx. 4) to the Director on October 3, 1988, hae received order dated 30.9.88 (Anx. 6) of the Director cancelling the previous order dated 14.9 88 (Anx. 3). This order has been challenged on the following two grounds: — (1) The order dated 14 9.88 (Anx 3) stood complied with prior to the issuance of the order dated 30.9.88 (Anx 6) and their remained nothing for its cancellation; and (2) It is illegal, void and without jurisdiction as it was not made in any public or administrative interest or exigency, it has been made with oblique motive, in abuse and in colourable exercise of powers and malafides at the instance of Shri Madhosingh Diwan, Famine Minister, Government of Raj. (respondent No. 3), without considering the factors on which the petitioner was transferred to Jodhpur by order (Anx. 3) and to accommodate Bhanwar-lal Chaudhary at Sheoganj and P.N. Bohra (respondent No. 2) at Jodhpur. 3. In reply to the show-cause notices, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their return. (respondent No. 3), without considering the factors on which the petitioner was transferred to Jodhpur by order (Anx. 3) and to accommodate Bhanwar-lal Chaudhary at Sheoganj and P.N. Bohra (respondent No. 2) at Jodhpur. 3. In reply to the show-cause notices, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their return. The respondent No. 3 has not filed any reply. 4. In their replies, respondents No. 1 and 2 have raised two preliminary objections against the maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, the Rajasthan State Seeds Certification Agency (respondent No. 1) is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the writ court. Secondly, material facts have been concealed and wrong facts have been stated in the writ petition. The petitioner has suppressed the fact that the order (Anx, 3) transferring him to Jodhpur was passed after he approached the Honble Agriculture Minister. He has wrongly stated that the respondent No. 2 stood relieved prior to the order (Anx. 6) dated 30. 9. 88 was passed. 5. The respondent No. 1 has further stated that before consideration of the petitioners representation (Anx. 2), the Honble Agriculture Minister requested the Director for the transfer of petitioner to Jodhpur in place of respondent No. 2 vide letter (Anx.R 1/1) dated September 8, 1988 of his Personal Secretary. Accordingly, the order dated 14. 9. 88 (Anx. 3) transferring the petitioner to Jodhpur was passed. As the transfer was made at the instance of the petitioner, he was not paid any T.A. and D.A. On 17. 9. 88, the respondent No. 2 was on tour outside Jodhpur and as such charge was not handed over by him to the petitioner when he reported on duty on that day. The order dated September 30, 1988 (Anx. 6) was issued at the instance of the Agriculture Minister vide letter (Anx. Rl/2) dated 23.9.88 of his Private Secretary. After the issuance of the order (Anx. 6), the petitioner was not authorised to perform any duty and he also did not discharge any function at Jodhpur. He was simply paid the salary in compliance with the ad-interim stay order of this Court. The allegations made against the respondent No. 3 are baseless and misconceived and he did not play any role in any transfer orders. All orders are valid. 6. He was simply paid the salary in compliance with the ad-interim stay order of this Court. The allegations made against the respondent No. 3 are baseless and misconceived and he did not play any role in any transfer orders. All orders are valid. 6. The respondent No. 2 has also averred in his reply that he did not stand relieved on 17th September, 1988, he is working at Jodhpur and has received letters from the respondent No. 1 in connection with the official work, even after 17 9. 1988. After the issuance of the order (Anx. 3), he approached the Agriculture Minister and apprised him of his hardship and difficulties, if he is to go from Jodhpur to Suratgarh and, thereafter, order (Anx. 6) was issued, keeping him at Jodhpur. 7. In his rejoinders to the replies, the petitioner admits that he submitted representation to the Agriculture Minister for his transfer to Jodhpur after the order (Anx. 1) was issued. But he has pleaded his ignorance that the order (Anx. 3) was passed at the instance of the Agriculture Minister. He has also stated that no fact has been concealed or mis-stated in the writ petition. The respondent No. 1 is a statutory body. The writ petition is perfectly maintainable against it. The respondent No. 2 is at Jodhpur for more than 4 years and the petitioner never had his posting at Jodhpur during last 11 years. 8. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have also filed their replies to the rejoinders of the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner showed us notification dated 30.3.78 issued by the Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur under Sec. 8(1), Seeds Act, 1966, published in Part IV (Ga) of the Rajasthan Gazette dated April 6, 1978, establishing the respondent No. 1 as a Seeds Certification Agency for the State of Rajasthan. In view of this notification, the learned counsel for the respondents did not press their first preliminary objection. 10. We find force in the second preliminary objection that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of concealment and mis-statement of material facts therein. The petitioner has filed a copy of the order (Anx. 3) transferring him to Jodhpur. 10. We find force in the second preliminary objection that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of concealment and mis-statement of material facts therein. The petitioner has filed a copy of the order (Anx. 3) transferring him to Jodhpur. Its endorsement shows that its copy was duly sent to the Private Secretary to Honble the Agriculture Minister, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur with reference to his letter No. 3048/PS/Agriculture/Minister/ 88/dated September 8, 1988 for information. The petitioner admits that he sent a representation to the Agriculture Minister for transferring him to Jodhpur. He had showed his ignorance that the order (Anx. 3) was passed at the instance of the Agriculture Minister. The respondent No. 1 has filed a copy of the letter (Anx. 1/1) dated September 8, 1988 of the Private Secretary to Honble the Agriculture Minister. This letter is addressed to the Director. It is stated in it that Honble the Agriculture Minister has directed that the petitioners transfer to Suratgarh be cancelled and he be transferred to Jodhpur, in place of respondent No. 2, Sri P N. Bohra. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was on leave from 23.8.88 to 16 9.88 It is stated in the letter of the Director dated 9.9.88 (Anx. 8) that the petitioner visited Jaipur after 23.8.88 and before 9.9.88 The petitioner also applied for leave on 11.988 vide Anx. R 1/3. It is well established from these facts that the transfer order (Anx. 3) was passed, after he had approached the Honble Agriculture Minister for his transfer to Jodhpur. Without any foundation, he has stated in the writ petition and rejoinder that the transfer orders (Anxs. 1 and 6) were passed at the instance of Shri Madhosingh Diwan, Famine Minister (Respondent No. 3). According to his affidavit, this averment is based on his personal knowledge. When he could know that the transfer orders (Anxs. 1 & 6) were passed at the instance of respondent No. 3, it is very difficult to believe the petitioner that he was not aware that the transfer order (Anx. 3) was passed at the instance of the Agriculture Minister, Government of Rajasthan. There is an obvious reason for suppressing this material fact. His case is that the transfer orders could not be passed at the instance of the Minister. 3) was passed at the instance of the Agriculture Minister, Government of Rajasthan. There is an obvious reason for suppressing this material fact. His case is that the transfer orders could not be passed at the instance of the Minister. These facts & circumstances leave no doubt that the petitioner wrongly stated in para (b) page 7 of the writ petition that he has no access to Honble Minister. 11. The petitioner has also incorrectly stated in para No. 9(a) of the writ petition that the respondent No. 2 Shri P.N. Bohra ceased to hold the office of the Assistant Seeds Certification Officer at Jodhpur and in para No. 4 of the stay application that the respondent No. 2 Shri P.N. Bohra has been relieved on September 17, 1988 and now he does not hold the office of the Assistant Seed Certification Officer at Jodhpur. In his joining report dated 17.9.1988 (Anx. 4), the petitioner has given a note to the effect that Dr. P.N. Bohra, Assistant Seed Certification Officer, has gone on tour on 17.9.88. His case is that on his assumption of the charge of Assistant Seed Certification Officer, Jodhpur on 17.9.1988, his predecessor Dr. P.N. Bohra stood relieved as he stood relieved from the same post at Sheoganj on the assumption of the charge by his successor Sri Bhanwar-lal Chaudhary. It is incorrect that the petitioner stood relieved from Sheoganj on the date on which his successor Sri Bhanwarlal Chaudhary reported on duty there in compliance with the order (Anx. 1). In para No. 1, page 3 of his rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that Bhanwarlal Chaudhary joined his duty at Sheoganj on 20 8.88. This is also stated in the letter (Anx. 8) dated 9.9.88 of the Director, addressed to the petitioner. It is also stated in it that the petitioner should have handed over the charge before coming to Jaipur, it was so made clear to him on phone and still he came to Jaipur. In the reply to the rejoinder, the respondent No. 1 has stated (at page 4) that on Bhanwarlal Chaudharys joining at Sheoganj on 20.8 88, the petitioner contacted the Director on phone and he was directed to hand over the charge to Shri Chaudhary. Despite it, he did not hand over the charge and did not proceed to Suratgarh in compliance with the order (Anx. 1). Despite it, he did not hand over the charge and did not proceed to Suratgarh in compliance with the order (Anx. 1). He reported on duty on 17th Septembsr, 1988, after the order (Anx. 3) transferring him to Jodhpur was issued. He was directed by the Director to apply for leave from 23 8.88 to 16.9.88 vide Anx. 9. It is further proved from the letters (Anxs. R 2/1 and 2/2) that the respondent No. 2 continued to work at Jodhpur. It may also be mentioned here that the petitioner has moved a contempt petition against Dr. U.B. Singh, Director of the respondent No. 1 and Shri P.N. Bohra (Respondent No. 2) for the non-compliance of the stay order passed by this Court on 7.10.88. If the respondent No. 2 stood relieved on 17.9.88, there was no question of moving this contempt application. Thus the petitioner is also guilty for wrongly stating the fact that the respondent No. 2 ceased to hold the office of the Assistant Seed Certification Officer at Jodhpur since 17. 9. 88. The writ petition deserves to be rejected on this preliminary objection No. 2. 12. Even on merits, there is no substance in the writ petition. It is clear from the transfer orders (Anxs. 1, 3 and 6) that their copies were sent to the Private Secretary to Honble the Agriculture Minister in pursuance of his letters, their particulars noted in the endorsements. The respondent No. 1 has categorically stated in its reply that these orders were passed at the instance of Honble the Agriculture Minister, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Shri Madho Singh Diwan, Honble the Famine Minister, has not come in picture in any of these transfer orders. In para No. 1 of his rejoinder to the reply to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner has stated that there was a rumour that Shri Bhanwarlal Chaudhary has an access to Shri Madho Singh Diwan and on his recommendation, Honble the Agriculture Minister sent a desire to the Director for accommodating Shri Bhanwarlal Chaudhary at Sheoganj. There is no material on record connecting the respondent No. 3 with these transfer orders (Anxs. 1, 3 and 6) in any manner. It would be very hazardous to place reliance on such rumours. It was thus not necessary for the Respondent No.3 to file his reply to the writ petition. There is no material on record connecting the respondent No. 3 with these transfer orders (Anxs. 1, 3 and 6) in any manner. It would be very hazardous to place reliance on such rumours. It was thus not necessary for the Respondent No.3 to file his reply to the writ petition. Reference of "Hernial Bhandari v. State of Sikkim," (1) may be made here. It is well proved that these orders were passed by the Director at the instance of Honble the Agriculture Minister, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. It is stated in para No. 2 of the writ petition that the Rajasthan State Seeds Certification Agency (respondent No. l)is an agency of the State of Rajasthan, Department of Agriculture. Thus the Agriculture Minister Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur is the concerned Minister.lt is admitted by the petitioner in his rejoinder that he sent a representation for his transfer to Jodhpur to Honble the Agriculture Minister, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. As already observed above, the order (Anx. 3), transferring the petitioner to Jodhpur was passed at the instance of the Agriculture Minister after the petitioner approached him. When the petitioner himself obtained order (Anx. 3) in his favour, he is estopped to say that Honble the Agriculture Minister had no jurisdiction to request the Director for the cancellation of the order (Anx. 3) At the instance of the same Minister, the orders (Anx.s 3 and 6) were passed. It is presumed that Honble the Agriculture Minister must have considered the difficulties of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 comparatively before requesting the Director for cancelling the order (Anx. 3). 13. Even accepting the case of the petitioner for a moment for the sake of arguments that Honble the Agriculture Minister had no jurisdiction to request the Director for transferring Bhanwarlal Chaudhary at Sheoganj in place of the petitioner to cancel the order (Anx. 3) transferring the petitioner at Jodhpur in place of Shri P.N. Bohra (respondent No. 2), he does not stand benefited by it as the order (Anx. 3) transferring him to Jodhpur was also passed at the instance of Honble the Agriculture Minister. The maxim PAR DELICTUM EST DUO RUM SEMPER ONERATUR PETITOR ET MALIOR AABETUR POSSESSORS CAUSA (when both the parties are in fault, the plaintiff must always fail and the cause of the person in possession be preferred) aptly applies in this case. 3) transferring him to Jodhpur was also passed at the instance of Honble the Agriculture Minister. The maxim PAR DELICTUM EST DUO RUM SEMPER ONERATUR PETITOR ET MALIOR AABETUR POSSESSORS CAUSA (when both the parties are in fault, the plaintiff must always fail and the cause of the person in possession be preferred) aptly applies in this case. It has been observed in Jawaharlal v. Union of India, (2), as follows: — "(22) in judicial decisions where this question has been considered a passage from the judgment of Lord Mansfield, C. J. in Holman v. Johnson, (1775) 1 Cowp 341, is often quoted. If we may say so with respect the said passage very succinctly and eloquently brings out the true principles which should govern the decision of such cases. Said Lord Mansfield, C.J., "the objection that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but it is founded in general principles of policy which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. The principle of public policy is this : ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiffs own stat-ing or otherwise the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff." 14. Admittedly, all the three transfer orders (Anx. 1, 3 and 6) have been issued by the Director. According to rule 27, Rajasthan State Seed Certification Agency Rules, 1976, the Director functions as the Chief Executive Officer of the Agency (respondent No. 1) and he is responsible for the proper administration of the affairs of the agency. Admittedly, all the three transfer orders (Anx. 1, 3 and 6) have been issued by the Director. According to rule 27, Rajasthan State Seed Certification Agency Rules, 1976, the Director functions as the Chief Executive Officer of the Agency (respondent No. 1) and he is responsible for the proper administration of the affairs of the agency. No party produced before us any regulation or circular issued by the Board of the respondent No. 1 relating to transfers of its staff Admittedly, petitioner was at Sheoganj for about 5 years The order (Anx. 3) dated 14.9.88 did not stand fully executed by the time the order dated 30.9.88 (Anx. 6) cancelling the order (Anx. 3) was passed. As already observed above Shri P.N. Bohra (respondent No. 2) did not stand relieved by 30 9 88. For this reason, it is stated in the order (Anx. 6) that Shri Bohra would continue to work at Jodhpur. When the order (Anx. 3) stood cancelled by this order (Anx. 6), the order (Anx. 1) stood revived. 15. It is not in dispute that the orders (Anxs. 1, 3 and 6) are administrative in nature. They were not passed by the Director in exercise of his statutory or quasi-judicial powers. They were passed by him in discharge of his administrative functions. Administrative or executive orders do not stand vitiated, if passed at the instance or direction of higher authorities unlike judicial or quasi-judicial orders. Viewed from any angle, the order (Anx. 6} cannot be said to be illegal or invalid, as all the three orders (Anxs.1,3 and 6) were passed at the instance of Honble the Agriculture Ministers. 16. The order (Anx. 3) did not become sacrosant and immune from reconsideration simply because the petitioner assumed the charge on September 17, 1988. It is not the case of the petitioner that a fresh order could not subsequ-ently be passed by the Director transferring him from Jodhpur to any other place of Rajasthan. 17. The petitioner has not given necessary particulars of the oblique motive, colourable exercise of powers, abuse of power and malafides. No material has been produced in support of these allegations. In their absence, it cannot be said that the order (Anx. 6) stood vitiated on account of any of these factors. 18. 17. The petitioner has not given necessary particulars of the oblique motive, colourable exercise of powers, abuse of power and malafides. No material has been produced in support of these allegations. In their absence, it cannot be said that the order (Anx. 6) stood vitiated on account of any of these factors. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited 1980 L.I.C. (H.P.), 1985 L.I.C. 1975 (Orissa), 1981 (3) S.L.R 154 (Raj.) and A.I.R. 1986 S C 872 in support of his arguments. The facts of all these reported cases are quite different and distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. 19. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.