Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions are connected - perhaps complementary to each other -and are therefore disposed of by a common judgment. Petitioners challenge orders of transfer (Ext.P9 in O.P.No.3946/88 and Ext.P7 in O.P. 5284/88 herein-after referred to as Exts.P9 & P7), both claiming retention at Trivandrum. 2. Petitioner in O.P.3946/88 (called Dr.George herein-after) challenges the order transferring him to Calicut, and petitioner in O.P.5284/88 (called Dr.Bhat hereinafter) also challenges the order transferring him to Calicut. 3. Both started their career as Tutors. Dr.Bhat was then appointed as Assistant Professor in Orthodontics. Against this, Dr.George complained and in consequence Dr.Bhat was reverted. Then a post of Assistant Professor was created, and Dr.Bhat was appointed to that. Later, Dr.Bhat was promoted as Associate Professor. Dr.George filed O.P.6941/82,1693/83 & 573/84, challenging the promotion granted to Dr.Bhat, and the rules that enabled the promotion. These were disposed of by a common judgment directing Dr.George to be promoted. To cut a long story short, Dr.George was promoted thereafter as Professor on 28-4-86. Dr.Bhat was retained as Professor by upgrading the post of Associate Professor and both continued at Trivandrum. While so, Ext.P4 order (O.P.3946/88) was passed directing "to give the charge of the Department of Orthodontics to the Director & Professor". The import of the order is not clear from its phraseology. However, Dr.George challenged this order in O.P.4169/86. 4. Suspecting that he may be transferred, Dr.George made a representation in a preemptive bid, to avert the transfer. He alleged that the then Chief Minister, was favourably disposed towards Dr.Bhat as he was his dentist. He enlisted nine points in his favour, for retention at Trivandrum. Despite this, Ext.P9 order dated 16-5-88 was issued by Government, transferring Dr.George to Calicut, seemingly in realisation of the fact that two posts could not be retained at Trivandrum. Dr.George, extremely vigilant of his rights then filed O.P.3946/88. That petition came up for hearing on 17-5-88 the day following Ext.P9 order. By orders in C.M.P.11312/88 the transfer was stayed. Meanwhile, Dr.Bhat took charge at Trivandrum. Then Dr.George filed C.M.P.11331/88 and by order dated 26-5-88, this Court directed implementation of the order of stay, observing that "it will be open to Government to give any alternative posting to 3rd respondent (Dr.Bhat)". 5. That was the curtai raiser for O.P.5284/88. By orders in C.M.P.11312/88 the transfer was stayed. Meanwhile, Dr.Bhat took charge at Trivandrum. Then Dr.George filed C.M.P.11331/88 and by order dated 26-5-88, this Court directed implementation of the order of stay, observing that "it will be open to Government to give any alternative posting to 3rd respondent (Dr.Bhat)". 5. That was the curtai raiser for O.P.5284/88. After the orders in C.M.P. 11331/88 dated 26-5-88, Government passed Ext.P7 order on 29-6-88 "in partial modification" of Ext.P9 transferring Dr.Bhat as Professor of Orthodontics in Dental College, Calicut. Dr.Bhat then filed O.P.5284/88 and by orders in C.M.P.15629/88, this court stayed the transfer. In turn, Dr.George moved C.M.P.17313/88 to vacate the order of stay in C.M.P.15629/88, as "there was no post or vacancy in Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum". This enthusiastic move was repelled by this court, and C.M.P.17313/88 was dismissed. 6. With this, battle lines were drawn in the combat - fought tooth and nail -between two Masters of Dental Surgery. De hors frills and embroidery, the question is, who should remain at Trivandrum. The concern of both, do not seem to extend beyond this. The legal nuances, only lace the central theme. For the sick there is no solace, as they were left to nurse their pains with the post at Calicut remaining vacant, while two are in position at Trivandrum, against one substantive post. 7. Each of the petitioners has, with verve and vigour, asserted his superior claims to Trivandrum. According to Dr.George, the senior among the two should be preferred. He has pressed into service eight other points, as well. He would say that Dr.Bhat, has at all times received favoured treatment. A chronicle of events has been portrayed to draw substance for this contention. 8. Dr.Bhat would press almost as many points in his favour, the foremost being an inter-caste marriage. Dr. George would promptly say, that it is not an inter-caste marriage. 9. I think it unnecessary - if not inexpedient - to evaluate comparative merits of two government servants for purposes of transfer, or retention at a station. These are matters in the province of the Executive Government, so long as they act fairly. Besides, as observed by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board and Another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (1989 (2) SCC 602). These are matters in the province of the Executive Government, so long as they act fairly. Besides, as observed by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board and Another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (1989 (2) SCC 602). "Transfer of a government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order There is no dispute that the respondent was holding a transferable post and under the conditions of service applicable to him he was liable to be transferred and post at any place within the State of Gujarat. The respondent had no legal or statutory right to insist for being posted at one particular place". The impugned orders are mutually inconsistent. Ext.P9 is not annulled by Ext.P7, as Ext.P7 is made only in partial modification of Ext.P9. A fresh decision must be taken by the Government undoing the knots that time has added. True,even administrative action must meet requirements of fair action. 10. The course adopted in the past by the Government, does not appear wholesome. After the judgment Ext.P1, Government allowed two officials to remain at Trivandrum against one substantive post. One may wonder if things turning out to the advantage of Dr.Bhat all along the way, was only a matter of coincidence. The conduct of petitioners, too, was not edifying. Self interest is understandable. But, self seeking with little concern for public interest, cannot be countenanced in areas of public service. Public interest must be the prime concern. Else, 'public service' will be no more, than a misnomer. Avid pursuit of self interest by petitioners is distressing, and it is a matter of doubt if they were alive to the basic obligations of a humane profession. Public service must evolve new ethos and look to a new skyline. Public interest must be the prime concern. Else, 'public service' will be no more, than a misnomer. Avid pursuit of self interest by petitioners is distressing, and it is a matter of doubt if they were alive to the basic obligations of a humane profession. Public service must evolve new ethos and look to a new skyline. Service jurisprudence cannot be all rights, and no duties. Nothing is more dangerous than a situation dominated by rights, without regard to duties. I quash Ext.P9 in O.P.3946/88 and Ext.P7 in O.P.5284/88, and direct the Government to pass appropriate orders. Status quo as on today will continue for six weeks to enable the Government to apply its mind and pass a considered order. Original petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs.