JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed with a prayer that impugned order dated September 25, 1989 (Ex. P/1), by which, the petitioner has been transferred from Sikar to Losal (Sikar), may be quashed and set aside and be declared to be void and illegal. 2. It is submitted by Mr. N.K. Jain, learned counsel, that the petitioner is working as teacher and is presently posted in Radha Krishna Maru Basi, Government Senior Higher Secondary School, Sikar (Girls), since September, 1987. It is submitted that the petitioner's husband is also a Lecturer and posted in Government College, Sikar since 1967. It is pointed out that the petitioner has been transferred from Sikar, even though, her husband is posted at Sikar and this has been done while ignoring the notification dated September 17, 1977, wherein, it is mentioned that the matter regarding posting of husband and wife at same place should be considered sympathetically, if they are working at different places and are in Government service. It is pointed out that again, the above policy was re-iterated by issuing another notification dated January 7, 1980. It is also submitted that respondent No. 4, who had been transferred to Sikar, has also joined and the petitioner is at Sikar on account of stay order issued by this Court in her favour. It is further submitted that since respondent No. 4 was not getting her salary, filed a civil suit in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for getting relief of payment of salary, which was decided on January 20, 1990 and it was directed that she be paid salary against the vacant post. It is frankly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even though, she has been in Sikar for the last 19 years and was transferred in between for some intervals outside Sikar, is now posted at Sikar. since about 91/2 years, as her husband is also posted there. It is pointed out that in para 4 of the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been mentioned that this aspect of matter was not considered while transferring the petitioner outside Sikar, as there was no record regarding this with the Department. 3. It is submitted by Mr. It is pointed out that in para 4 of the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been mentioned that this aspect of matter was not considered while transferring the petitioner outside Sikar, as there was no record regarding this with the Department. 3. It is submitted by Mr. L.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, that the petitioner, except for a short time, has been posted at Sikar since about 19 years and is, admittedly, posted there continuously since last 91/2 years. He states that it has been frankly admitted in para 4 of the reply that this aspect of the matter was not considered, because there was no record available regarding the posting of her husband with the Department. However, it is pointed out by him that the petitioner did not make any application to the authorities concerned drawing attention that the husband is posted at Sikar and that this matter should be considered. It is pointed out that in the notifications dated September 17, 1977 and January 7, 1980, it is clearly mentioned that when an application is made by an applicant, this aspect of the matter shall be considered sympathetically. It is pointed out that no such application was ever made by the petitioner to the concerned authorities for consideration of this aspect. It is submitted by Mr. M. Rafiq that respondent No. 4, in obedience to the order issued by respondent No. 1, had already come and had been at Sikar, even when this petition was filed However, this important fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. The learned counsel has also pointed out, as mentioned in para 4 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 that new instructions dated July 11, 1989 have been issued regarding policy of transfer by Government of Rajasthan superseding the earlier instructions pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also pointed that the salary for the month of February, 1990 has not been paid to respondent No. 4, as the vacant post, against which the salary was drawn and paid to the respondent No. 4, does not exist any more and, therefore, she is working there without getting any salary. 4. I have heard all the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. 4. I have heard all the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is evident that the petitioner has been posted at Sikar for sufficiently long time and the only consideration for keeping her for further time at Sikar can be, because of posting of her husband at that place. I am of the clear opinion that administrative instructions issued by State are not binding as they are not framed under any statute, hence, have no force of law and are not, therefore, enforceable in any court of law. Administrative instructions are only in the nature of guide-lines issued by the State for guidance of the concerned authorities, while transfers are made. I am fortified in my opinion by authority of P.C. Sethi v. Union of India 1975 (1) SLR 783 , in which it was held by the Apex Court that administrative instructions are not binding and have no force of law. Even in earlier notifications or latest instructions dated July 11, 1989, it is clearly mentioned that the matter of considering the posting of husband and wife at same place will be considered sympathetically at the time of deciding the question of their posting. In the above-mentioned instructions, it is mentioned in para II sub-clause (3)(iii) that while posting husband and wife, an effort will be made to post both of them at same place without causing any harm to the interest of other employee. It is also provided in clause 12 that, if any employee feels that his transfer has been made against the guidelines/administrative instructions dated July 11, 1989, he should first obey the orders and, thereafter, within a period of one week of joining at the new place of posting, such employee can make a representation to the higher authorities for re-considering his posting and the higher authorities shall maintain a register of such representation and decide the same within one month. Thus, a full procedure has been provided not only for considering the transfer of the petitioner at the initial level, if a representation is filed by the concerned employee, but even after that, a soil of provision for appeal has also been provided where the matter will be considered by the concerned higher authorities. However none of these things have been done by the petitioner. 6. However none of these things have been done by the petitioner. 6. It may be clearly mentioned that no Government servant has any right to be posted at a particular place throughout his/her career. Transfer is an administrative exigency and is implicit in Government service and the persons, who join Government service, know it very well that this is a transferable job. However, if any application for re-consideration of the transfer by the petitioner is made to the concerned authorities within 15 days of this order, the same may be considered on merits in accordance with administrative instructions dated July 11, 1989. 7. I, therefore, do not find any force in this writ petition, which is, dismissed, with no order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******