JUDGMENT 1. - This is a writ petition by Gokul Nath Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of his transfer ordered by the Director Ayurved Department Ajmer dated 29th July, 1989 (Annexure 4). 2. Petitioner No. 2 Gokul Nath Sharma has alleged that he is employed as Senior Vaidya in Ayurved Department since the year 1976. It is stated that he has been mostly posted outside Jaipur during his service tenure. His son Yogesh Kumar bad some orthopaedic problem in his right leg and is on medical investigation. It was found that there is cancer in the right leg giant cell tumor Upper tibea fabula. He was accordingly operated & in support thereof a certificate of Dr. C.S. Sharma Reader in Orthopaedics SMS Medical College Jaipur has been filed. He states that his wife used to remain ill and therefore he made an application for his transfer to Jaipur. Accordingly the State Government transferred him from Dahimatha District Bhilwara to Ayurved Dispensary in Brahmapuri Jaipur. He took over on September 20, 1988 at Brahmapuri. Jaipur. It has been alleged that as under the influence of political pressure State Minister directed the Director. Ayurved to transfer the petitioner from Ayurved Dispensary Brahmapuri. Jaipur to Dahimatha District Bhilwara and in his place Ramesh Chandra Sharma was posted at Jaipur He thereupon filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 3626 of 1988 in this Court. That writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on October 7, 1988. The Division Bench mentioned in its order that petitioner No. 2 should make a representation to the State Government and it is expected that the State Government will consider the representation sympathetically and with humanistic approach and decide his representation within one month. It was further directed that for six weeks the petitioner will not be transferred from Jaipur. Accordingly petitioner No. 2 made a representation dated October 10, 1988 to the Director Ayurved Department Secretary. Medical & Health Department (Ayurved) and the Minister of State for Ayurved. However on October 14, 1988 in defiance of the Court's order the petitioner was transferred on October 14 1988 under political pressure. Against that order the petitioner filed another writ petition No 4372/l988 and in that writ petition a stay order was passed staying the operation of the order dated October 14, 1988. However on October 14, 1988 in defiance of the Court's order the petitioner was transferred on October 14 1988 under political pressure. Against that order the petitioner filed another writ petition No 4372/l988 and in that writ petition a stay order was passed staying the operation of the order dated October 14, 1988. The second writ petition was listed before the Bench on July 13, 1989 it was represented before the Court that by a subsequent order dated May 31, 1989 Annexure 3 the earlier order dated October 14, 1988. in relation to the petitioner transferring him from Brahmapuri Jaipur to Dahimatha (District Bhilwara) was cancelled. On the basis of that representation the second writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter it is alleged that arbitrarily the petitioner was again transferred by the impugned order dated July 29, 1989 (Annexure 4) from the Dispensary Brahmapuri Jaipur to Dahimatha (District Bhilwara) and in his place Ramesh Chandra Sharma was posted at Dispensary Brahmapuri. Jaipur. The order dated July 29, 1989 is said to be arbitrary and has been effected on account of political influence. The order is alleged to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Notice of the writ petition was issued to respondents Nos. I and 2. Later on Ramesh Chandra Sharma applied for being impleaded as a party and he was allowed to be impleaded by order of this Court dated 15th November 1989. The matter came before me on 6th December 1989 and looking to the acts alleged by the petitioner respondents Nos. 1. 2 and 3 were directed to produce the relevant file of the Secretariat and of the Department before this Court including that of the Minister (respondent No. 3) for perusal of the Court. The petitioner Gokul Nath was also directed to produce his son Yogesh Kumar before the Court On December 18, 1987, Yogesh Kumar petitioner No. 1. was produced in person before the Court. He showed hip legs. It appears that he has some trouble in his leg. for which he had been operated and now he is able to walk. The Deputy Government Advocate produced some files of the Directorate Ayurved Ajmer relating to the transfers of "Chikitsaks" at the level of Ayurved State Minister. The learned Deputy Government Advocate also stated that the transfer of the petitioner has been cancelled by the State Government on Dec. for which he had been operated and now he is able to walk. The Deputy Government Advocate produced some files of the Directorate Ayurved Ajmer relating to the transfers of "Chikitsaks" at the level of Ayurved State Minister. The learned Deputy Government Advocate also stated that the transfer of the petitioner has been cancelled by the State Government on Dec. 16, 1989. Respondents No. 1 & were directed to file reply to the writ petition with the cancellation order. The petitioner's counsel stated that he would move an application regarding withdrawal of the writ petition on account of its becoming infructuous. The matter has thus. come up today before this Court. On behalf of the petitioners an application has been filed stating that the Government has cancelled his transfer order dated July 29, 1989 by its order dated December 16, 1989 It has therefore been stated that the writ petition has become infructuous and either it may be declared as infructuous or the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition. 3. In view of the application filed by the petitioners stating that the writ petition has become infructuous as a result of the order dated December 16, 1989 there remains no question now of any ground for relief to the petitioner. 4. However since respondents No. 1 and 2 have produced the relevant record maintained by the Director Ayurved Department Ajmer (respondent No. 2) relating to the transfer of petitioner No 2 and it has b:en perused by the Court it needs to be mentioned that all the transfer orders of the petitioner and Ramesh Chandra including their cancellation have been made by respondent No. 2 at the behest of the State Minister for Ayurved or even his Private Secretary. It may quite clearly be mentioned that a Minister or a State Minister is not Government. The executive power of State vests in the Governor and any order of the Government has either to be expressed in the name of the Governor or duly authenticited by a person authorised in this behalf to authenticate Government orders. It may quite clearly be mentioned that a Minister or a State Minister is not Government. The executive power of State vests in the Governor and any order of the Government has either to be expressed in the name of the Governor or duly authenticited by a person authorised in this behalf to authenticate Government orders. A Minister or a State Minister much less his Private Secretary had no legal authority to Head of Department to make transfers of Government employees On a perusal of the file produced before this Court it appears that from page 51-C of file No. Privatedan/va/pari/77 that Mool Chand Arya Private Secretary to Minister for State for Ayurved (respondent No. 3) wrote a letter dated August 8, 1988 directing the Director Ayurved to make as many as 60 transfers immediately on that very day under intimation to the office of the Minister. The Director had no option but to comply with it on that very day as appears from page 63 to 66 of the said file. Then it would appear from page 86-C of the said file that the Director had instructed his UDC to bring with him the complete record of transfers in the office of the Private Secretary to the State Minister in Ayurved. Then from page 184-C of the said file it appears that even the Minister who was not Minister for Ayurved but was Minister for Forest had telephoned to the Director to make some transfers. But the Director informed him by letter dated September 6, 1988 that it would be proper to talk to the State Minister for Ayurved. Then again at page 189 there is a letter by Mool Chand Private Secretary to respondent No. 3 directing the Director to cancel the transfers of some persons and it was mentioned that it was instruction of respondent No. 3. Then the Director wrote a letter on September 8, 1988 at page 190-C to the Deputy Secretary to the Government in Medical & Health Department Ajmer that some transfers had been made at the desire of State Minister. Surprisingly at page 198-C there is an application made by Vaidya Narsingh Dutt Sharma to the Medical Secretary for making his transfer to Sonod. On this application Medical & Health Secretary passed an order that the application be processed for obtaining orders of the State Minister for Ayurved. Surprisingly at page 198-C there is an application made by Vaidya Narsingh Dutt Sharma to the Medical Secretary for making his transfer to Sonod. On this application Medical & Health Secretary passed an order that the application be processed for obtaining orders of the State Minister for Ayurved. The most confidential letter is at page 197-C whereby the Private Secretary to Ayurved Minister wrote D.O. letter on August 3, 1988 to the Director that in future he should make transfers only after obtaining the orders of the Minister Ayurved. The entire file and the entire papers in it go to show that each and every transfer was made by the Director only if the Minister so expressed or if the Private Secretary, to the Minister gave him instructions together with a list of postings. The Director Ayurved was thus left with no alternative but to literally comply with the desire and directions given by the Ayurved Minister or his Private Secretary. it is difficult to understand the status of Private Secretary to a Minister or a State Minister giving direction to the Head of Department to make transfers and not to make the same without the concurrence of the Minister. This reveals complete maladministration in the Ayurved Department of the Government and the result of this maladministration is clearly noticeable in the instant case that on numerous occasions the petitioner has been transferred to Dahimatha. When he filed writ petition and this Court expected sympathetic consideration out of humanistic approach and gave time to the Government to make that consideration the Minister immediately transferred the petitioner to Dahimatha soon the petition was disposed of. When second writ petition was filed. the transfer made to Dahimatha was cancelled rendering the writ petition in fructuous. Soon thereafter a third order transferring the petitioner to Dahimatha was made at the instance of the Minister and when this writ petition came at the stage of disposal there is again an order passed only three days before cancelling the impugned order Annx. a dated July 29, 1989 rendering this writ petition infructuous. These facts in itself are sufficient to show that all these transfers had been effected for political reasons at the behest of the Minister and at his desire. Such desired transfers are not only illegal but unconstitutional. 5. a dated July 29, 1989 rendering this writ petition infructuous. These facts in itself are sufficient to show that all these transfers had been effected for political reasons at the behest of the Minister and at his desire. Such desired transfers are not only illegal but unconstitutional. 5. Since the petitioner now states that in view of the order December 16 1989 this writ petition has become infructuous and I dismiss it as infructuous.Petition dismissed as infructuous. *******