JASRAJ CHOPRA, J.—The petitioner Dr. Ashok Kumar has filed this writ petition against his transfer order Annexure-1 dated 23.1.1990, which was passed during the election process, when there was a complete ban on transfers as per Annexure-2 dated 1.1.1990. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the person who passed the transfer order Annexurer-1 was not authorised to pass such transfer order and secondly, this transfer has been made in order to accommodats respondent No. 3 Dr. Anand Raj Kalla, under some political pressure at his behest. He has submitted that it is a mid-term transfer and therefore it is against the Govt. and public policy. According to the petitioner, the above action is in colourable exercise of the powers by transferring and disturbing the petitioner at least during the period when there was complete ban on transfers and further it was a mid term transfer and therefore, if it is allowed to stand, it will result in allowing such abuse of powers with a malafide intention. 3. No return has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2. However respondent No. 3 Shri Anand Raj Kalla has joined the issue with the petitioner. The respondent No.3 has raised a preliminary objection that the order of transfer falls within the definition of sec. 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 (for short the Act), which provides for an alternative afficacious remedy and, therefore, the petitioner should not have approached this Court directly without availing the alternative remedy. He has further submitted that it is a case of suggestio falsi and Supressiovaeri in as much as Annexure-2 is only a news item published in the Rajasthan Patrika as regards ban on transfers. It was further submitted that the alleged notification dated 31.12.1989 being administrative instructions / executive orders does not creat any right much less a legal right in favour of the petitioner and as the same cannot be enforced by way of writ petition, this writ petition is not maintainable. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by this transferee should have made a representation to the Government. According to respondent No. 3, Dr. Ashok Kumar is posted at Jodhpur since 1981. He has created his vested interest here. He was transferred twice or thrice from Jodhpur but he managed those transfers and remained at Jodhpur. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by this transferee should have made a representation to the Government. According to respondent No. 3, Dr. Ashok Kumar is posted at Jodhpur since 1981. He has created his vested interest here. He was transferred twice or thrice from Jodhpur but he managed those transfers and remained at Jodhpur. He is running his private Clinic named as Ashok Diagonestic Clinic, Opposite Umed Hospital, Jodhpur and, therefore, the petitioners transfer is in the interest of the Govt. The respondent No. 3 has further submitted that he is doing M.D. under the Head of the Department of Pathology and he has already finished his one year. According to him, on account of his posting at Ajmer, his registration of M.D, was cancelled, which was ultimately revived and it was because of this, that he has been transferred back to Jodhpur. According to respondent No. 3, this transfer order has been issued by the Government and, therefore, no concurrence of any body was necessary. He has already joined on 27.1.1990 and that fact has been suppressed by the petitioner. It is alleged that this Court in Dr. J.N. Vyas V. State of Rajasthan (1) has held that the transfer policy is not justiceable. 4. In this case, it was ordered on 30.1.1990 by this Court that in the meantime, the status quo as it exists to day shall be maintained. As on 30.1.1990 the petitioner was not relieved and respondent No. 3 Shri Anand Raj Kalla has already joined and, therefore, both the parties were allowed to continue till the election process was over. 5. I have head Mr. R.K. Charan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Hemant Choudhary, the learned Assistant Govt. Advocate and Mr. Kamal Joshi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 6. Mr. R.K. Charan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that now when the election process is over, the order Annexure-1 dated 23.1.1990 under which the petitioner has been transferred cannot be sustained and, therefore, the State Govt. should be directed to pass any appropriate orders. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Choudhary appearing for the State has submitted that now the election process is over and so, the StateGovt. is free to act in the manner it likes. should be directed to pass any appropriate orders. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Choudhary appearing for the State has submitted that now the election process is over and so, the StateGovt. is free to act in the manner it likes. However, it was contended on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the order Annexure-1 should be executed now. 7. It was submitted by Mr. R.K. Charan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the StateGovt. has further imposed a ban on transfer and, therefore, the order Annexure-1 which has been passed during the election process cannot be sustained on account of a further ban on transfers and the petitioner cannot be relieved from Jodhpur. He has filed copy of that Circular which has been issued recently by the State Govt. imposing ban on transfers. 8. Mr. Kamal Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has submitted that if the petitioner wants to seek any relief under the garb of that Circular dated March 7,1990 whereby the State Govt. has imposed ban on transfers, then the petitioner should have amended this writ petition. Mr. Joshi has further argued that the guidelines laid down in Circulars of Government for transfer of Govt. servants being administrative and executive instructions are not justiceable. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwan Das Bhatia V. State (2) wherein a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed as follows: "The Circulars of the Govt. referred to by the learned counsel only lay down guiding principles and do not create any legal right in favour of any Govt. servant. Transfer is an exigency of service and any departure from the guiding principles laid down in the circular letter does not raise any legal ground justifying interference by the Court in exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution more so when it is found that the departure was not arbitrary or malafide." In Ghisulal V. The Union of India (3) M. C. Jain, J. (as he then was) observed that the tenure policy is meant for the officers empowered to effect transfers. A guide-line is provided in it for the competent authorities, to effect transfers. Such instructions and policies do not confer a right on the Airman and they cannot claim as a matter of right for its enforcement. A guide-line is provided in it for the competent authorities, to effect transfers. Such instructions and policies do not confer a right on the Airman and they cannot claim as a matter of right for its enforcement. If any competent authority in disregard of the Govt. instructions issues transfer orders, then the remedy is to approach the higher authority and make a representation in that behalf. But, he will have no enforceable right and cannot seek queshing of the transfer orders. The tenure policy in the present case as stated in Annexures R-l, R-2 and R.3. is not justiceable and enforceable at law as it does not confer any legal-right on the petitioner. 9. In Shanti Kumari V. Regional Dy. Director, Health Services, Patna(4) their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that transfer of a Govt. servant may be due to ex gencies of service or due to administrative reasons and the Court cannot interfere in such matters. In that case, petitioner Shanti Kumari was transferred to a place other than home district. It was alleged that this transfer is in contravention of State Govts directions. The petitioner failed to file any representation to the State Govt. The High Court declined to interfere and the decision of the High Court was upheld by their lordships of the Sup- • reme Court. 10. My attention was also drawn to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in S. Verdha Rao vs. State of Karnataka (5) where in it has been observed: "The norms enunciated by Govt. for the guidance of its officers in the matter of regulating transfers are more in the nature of guidelines to the officers who order transfere in the exigencies of administration than vesting of any immunity from transfer in the Govt. servants." It was further observed as follows: "It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing autho-rity has a wide discretion in the matter. The Govt. is the best Judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing autho-rity has a wide discretion in the matter. The Govt. is the best Judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to malafide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfars cannot but be held as malafide. A transfer is malafide when it is made not for professed purpose such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose than is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reason. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair." In Union of India V. H.N. Kirtania (6) the Supreme Court held that when the Tribunal recorded its positive findings that the transfer order was legal and valid and it was not vitiated by any unfairness or malafide it should have dismissed the writ petitions and it should have issued further directions regarding the release order and the payment of emoluments. 11. The ratio of Ghisulals case (supra) was approved by this Court in S. Ganguly V. U.O.I. (7). 12. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid decisions of their lordships of the Supreme Court and various other High Courts that generally guidelines or administrative instructions issued by the Govt. regulating general transfers are not justiceable and they confer no right on the Govt, servants as regards its enforcement as of right. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case, I am firmly of the view that this is not the case in which the ratio of these decisions can be applied because it is a case of transfer during assembly election process. In this case, vide order/ notification dated 31.12.1989 issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan, General Administration Department Gr. II, Jaipur, the State Govt. has imposed ban on transfer and grant of leave to Govt. servants etc. This Order/Notification starts with the following words— "Rajasthan Legislation Assembly elections are to be held in near future. In this case, vide order/ notification dated 31.12.1989 issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan, General Administration Department Gr. II, Jaipur, the State Govt. has imposed ban on transfer and grant of leave to Govt. servants etc. This Order/Notification starts with the following words— "Rajasthan Legislation Assembly elections are to be held in near future. The following orders are issued for strict and careful compliance by all Departments of the State Govt." Thus, it is clear that this order has been issued by the State Govt. for strict compliance and it is not a case of issuing general policy/guidelines regarding transfer and it has been issued to meet the particular emergent circumstance of holding assembly elections. By this Order/Notification/Circular, the Chief Secretary to the Govt. has imposed complete ban on transfers and grant of leave to Govt. servants, who were connected with the conduct of elections i.e. all Police Officers and all Officers of the Revenue Deptt. including Tehsildars, Naib Tehsil-dars. L.Rs. and Patwaries, Secretaries, Rural, Development and Panchayati Raj & Local Self Govt. and Urban Development Housing were asked to issue instructions on these lines in respect of Officers and Staff working under Zila Parishads, Panchayat Samities and Municipalities and Jaipur Development Authority and UTTs. The Govt. Servants other than these specified at item No. 2 in the aforesaid Order/Notification/Circular should also normally not be transferred from 1.1.1990 till completions of elections. It was, however ordered that if transfer of any such Govt. servant is considered necessary to be absolutely imperative, the authority competent to effect such transfer shall first obtain the concurrence of the Collector of the District concerned and, thereafter, obtain the approval of the next higher authority. In cases Govt. servants who are trasferable by Heads of Departments such prior approval should be obtained from the Secretary for the Administrative Department concerned and copies of all such transfer orders shall invariably be endorsed by the concerned Departmental Secretary to the Govt, Secretary of the Election Department, in case of State and Subordinate Services Officers and the Collector concerned in other cases indicating the reference numbers, and dates of the communications under which the concurrence of the Collector and approval of the next higher authority were obtained and the reasons for effecting the transfers in question. The posts of the Doctors are covered in the category of Servants other than those specified at item No. 2 in the Order/Notification/ Circcular of the Govt. dated 31.12.1989 and, therefore the Doctors could be transferred by the Head of the Department if such transfers are considered necessary to be absolutely imperative and in that case the competant authority should have obtained concurrence of the Collector of the District concerned and thereafter it should have obtained the approval of the next higher authority. Such prior approval should have been obtained from the Secretary of the Administrative Department concerned and copies of such transfer orders should have been endorsed to the Secretary to the Govt. In the Election Department. The order must indicate reference number and the date of communication under which the concurrence of the Collector and approval of the next higher authority were obtained and the reasons for effecting the transfer in question. 13. In this case, the order Annexure-1 dated 23.1.90 neither mentions the fact that it was absolutely imperative to transfer these Doctors during the election process nor it contains reference number and the dates of communications under which the concurrence of the Collector and Secretary to the Govt., Medical and Health Department were obtained, nor any reasons for effecting transfers in question have been given. Thus, the order Annexure-1 dated 23.1.1990 which has been passed in violation of the Order/Circular/Notification dated 31.12.1989 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Govt., cannot be sustained. By the Order/Circular/Notification dated 31.12.1989, it was enjoined upon all the Officers to comply it strictly and no departure was permitted. 14. It was next contended by Mr. Kamal Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 that Dr. Ashok Kumar has been posted at Jodhpur since 1981 and, therefore, he has created his vested interest here by opening his own Clinic. In this respect, he has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Dr. J. N. Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) wherein it has been observed: "Transfers are assential part of public administration and a condition of service. Only those transfers are tested and subjected to judicial scrutiny which are arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and malafide. Transferes which are made having regard to the administrative exigency and after sufficient stay for a reasonable period, perse, cannot be regarded as arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and malafide. Only those transfers are tested and subjected to judicial scrutiny which are arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and malafide. Transferes which are made having regard to the administrative exigency and after sufficient stay for a reasonable period, perse, cannot be regarded as arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and malafide. This Court has interfered where there have been transfers frequently, arbitrary and at the instance of those high authorities who have no business to interfere with the mind of the authority competent to make transfer under the Rules and where transfers have been made as a result of political pressures." Mr. Joshi has, therefore, submitted that long stay at one place creates vested interest and, therefore, such a transfer should not be interfered. Mr. Joshi has further drawn my attention to para 6 of the judgment in S. Vardha Raos case (supra), wherein their lordships observed that at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or most responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Govt. is not conducive to good administration. It creates vested interest and, therefore, we find that even from the British times, the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the Govt. will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer. 15. According to Mr. Joshi, Dr. Ashok Kumar is posted at Jodhpur for the past 8-9 years and he has created his vested interest here at Jodhpur as he is running a Clinic of his own and, therefore, his transfer should be allowed to stand. So far as these principles are concerned, there is no quarrel about it and the Govt. will be free to keep these guidelines in view at the time of issuing fresh transfer orders. Since the order Annexure-1 dated 23. 1. 1990 has been passed during the election process and that too in defiance of the order dated 31. 12. 1989 passed by the Govt. and, therefore, that order as such cannot be sustained. However, as Dr. Ashok Kumar has not been relieved under the garb of the stay order passed by this Court and respondent No.3 Dr. 1. 1990 has been passed during the election process and that too in defiance of the order dated 31. 12. 1989 passed by the Govt. and, therefore, that order as such cannot be sustained. However, as Dr. Ashok Kumar has not been relieved under the garb of the stay order passed by this Court and respondent No.3 Dr. Anand Raj Kalla has joined in pursuance of order Annexure-1, the order Annexure-1 stands complied with partially and, therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the only reasonable course now open to the Govt. is that the Govt. should pass appropriate orders afresh as regards transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.3 within 15 days from today keeping in view the guide lines which have been set out in Dr. J. N. Vyass case by a learned single Judge of this Court. 16. It was contended by Mr. Charan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Govt. has issued fresh ban on transfers. The order imposing fresh ban on transfers lays down the general guidelines. This order has not been passed to meet with any emergent circumstances or situation. Even the petitioner has not amended his writ petition on this ground that no fresh ban has been imposed on transfers by the State Govt. As observed above, the guidelines or administrative instructions issued by the Govt regulating general transfers are not justiceable and they confer no right on the Govt. servant as regards its enforcement as of right and, therefore, I find no force in this contention raised by Mr. Charan. 17. In the result, I accept this writ petition and set aside the order dated 23.1.1990 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner Dr. Ashok Kumar has been transferred from Jodhpur to Ajmer vice Shri (Dr.) Anand Raj Kalla. However, it will be open to the State Govt. to pass appropriate orders as regards transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.3 within 15 days from today keeping in view the guidelines which have been set out in Dr. J. N. Vyass case (supra). 18. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this writ petition.