JUDGMENT K.A. Nayar, J. 1. The promotion and postings of two Doctors, viz. the petitioner and the second respondent are the subject matter of this writ petition. By Ext P-1 dated 1st June 1990 the second respondent was promoted and posted as Deputy Superintendent, Government Hospital, Kozhikode in the place of the petitioner transferred therefrom. The petitioner who was functioning as Deputy Superintendent, Government Hospital, Kozhikode was transferred and posted as Deputy District Medical Officer (H) Kasaragod in the place of Dr. Abdul Jaleel transferred. The case of the petitioner is that he has been posted as Deputy Superintendent on promotion to Kozhikode on 23rd February 1989 and he has to retire on superannuation on 31st July 1991. Therefore, under the guidelines he was permitted to continue in the existing post at Kozhikode. The case of the second respondent also is almost the same. The second respondent was promoted by Ext. P-1 order dated 1st June 1990 and instead of posting him in Kasargode District where there are two vacancies including the vacancy which arose consequent on transfer of Dr. Abdul Jaleel, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent, Government Hospital, Kozhikode, in the place of petitioner transferred. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court, by Ext. P-3 judgment in O. P. 5166 of 1990, dated 8th June 1990, directed the petitioner to file a representation highlighting his grievances and further directed the first respondent to dispose of such representation in the light of the observation made in the judgment. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "Petitioner was posted at Kozhikode on 23rd February, 1989. He has been there for nearly one year and 3 months only. He is to retire from service on superannuation on 31st July 1991. His transfer from Kozhikode is clearly against the norms fixed by the Government in G. O. (P) 2/87/P and PH&D. As per the norms an officer is to be in one place for a period of three years. Further an officer who is having less than two years to retire from service has to be given posting at a place of his choice. These two guidelines laid down by the Government have been violated while issuing Ext. P-1 order. So the petitioner's transfer from Kozhikode has to be reconsidered by the Government. Further an officer who is having less than two years to retire from service has to be given posting at a place of his choice. These two guidelines laid down by the Government have been violated while issuing Ext. P-1 order. So the petitioner's transfer from Kozhikode has to be reconsidered by the Government. If the petitioner files a representation highlighting his grievances, the same will be disposed of by the Government in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made earlier in this judgment within a period of two weeks from the date of its receipt." In implementation of the direction of this Court, the petitioner filed Ext. P-4 representation dated 14th June 1990. But Ext. P-4 representation was disposed of by the Government by order dated 28th July 1990 produced by the petitioner as Ext. P-7. It is stated in Ext. P-7 that as a matter of practice, officers should not be allowed to continue in a particular place of posting indefinitely for a long time. It is further stated that the Doctors can be shifted on administrative grounds. In view of public interest too, the Medical Officers can be posted out of a particular District or place and that nothing confers on them permanency for posting at a particular place. These facts or principles cannot be objected to, but the application in particular case will have to be scrutinised. The petitioner has a case that under the guideline Ext. P-2, an employee who have only, two years to retire had to be posted, as far as possible, to stations of their choice, preference being given to those who retire earlier. Further, it is also stated that employees who have not completed three years of duty in a station shall not ordinarily be transferred. The petitioner has not completed three years in the station as he has been promoted to that post only by order dated 23rd February 1989 and he is to retire from service on superannuation on 31st July 1.991. Therefore, both the clauses in the guideline will apply in this case. 2. The petitioner has not completed three years in the station as he has been promoted to that post only by order dated 23rd February 1989 and he is to retire from service on superannuation on 31st July 1.991. Therefore, both the clauses in the guideline will apply in this case. 2. In R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority 1979 (3) S.C.C. 7489 Supreme Court observed: "It is well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain, of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Viteralli v. Saton where the learned Judge said: An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standard by which it professes its action to be judged." The Supreme Court further held that "It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege." The State as far as possible must adhere to the guideline which it sets for" themselves. In this case the petitioner, a Doctor, on promotion was posted in Kozhikode on 23rd February 1989 and he would like to continue there until his retirement on 31st July 1991 which is an event now to occur within about 10 months. Similarly, the second respondent, a doctor, who has been promoted from Kanhangad likes to be posted in Kasargode District. He is a Doctor belonging to Kannada Linguistic Minority and the Government Departments are directed to post Kannada knowing officers in all the departments including the Health Department functioning in Kasargode area. Therefore, he likes to be posted to Kasargode District and he also is to retire in December 1991. He is a Doctor belonging to Kannada Linguistic Minority and the Government Departments are directed to post Kannada knowing officers in all the departments including the Health Department functioning in Kasargode area. Therefore, he likes to be posted to Kasargode District and he also is to retire in December 1991. In short the petitioner has to retire on 31st July 1991 and the second respondent is to retire in December 1991 and they like to be posted in the places indicated above. Normally there cannot have any administrative difficulty in giving a posting to the petitioner and the second respondent in the place of their choice accepting the indication given by Ext. P-3 judgment of this Court. 3. But by Ext. P-7 the first respondent has chosen to deny the request of the petitioner. Ext. P-7 was once again challenged by the Petitioner before this Court and this Court by judgment in O. P. No. 7295 of 1990 quashed Ext. P-7 and directed the Government to take back the representation filed by the petitioner to file and To pass orders according to law. The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court reads as under: "By Ext. P-1 order, dated 1st June 1990 petitioner was transferred from Kozhikode and was posted as Deputy District Medical Officer (Health) at Kasargode. In the place held by the petitioner, viz. Deputy Superintendent of Government Hospital, Dr. G. Balakrishna Kunhikulaya was posted. Dr. G. Balakrishna Kunhikulaya was working in the District Hospital, Kanhangad. Petitioner is to retire from service on superannuation on 31st July 1991. Dr. G. Balakrishna Kunhikulaya, as per Ext. P-5 representation put in by him, has got 19 months more for retirement on superannuation. He has represented to Government by Ext. P-5 to have a posting back to his native district. By transferring the petitioner to Kasargode and giving a posting to Dr. G. Balakrishna Kunhikulaya at Kozhikode, the Government have violated the guidelines laid down by it in not giving a posting to them at the place of their choice because they are having less than two years to retire on superannuation. When guidelines are prescribed by a civilised Government, that Government is, bound to honour the same. While issuing Ext. P-7 the Government did note take not of the guidelines. Petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer to Kasargode. Dr. When guidelines are prescribed by a civilised Government, that Government is, bound to honour the same. While issuing Ext. P-7 the Government did note take not of the guidelines. Petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer to Kasargode. Dr. G. Balakrishna Kunhikulaya is also aggrieved by the posting given to him to Kozhikode. These grievances will not certainly go to advance the administrative reason or public interest made mention of by the Government in Ext. P-7. While issuing Ext. P-7 the Government had not taken note of the observations made by this Court in the judgment in O.P. 5165/90. Under these circumstances, I quash Ext. P-7 and direct the Government to take back the representation filed by the petitioner to file and to pass orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made earlier in this judgment. Final order as stated above should be issued on or before 25th August 1990." Petitioner has averred that the post of Deputy District Medical Officer (II), Kozhikode is lying vacant for the past more than a year and the petitioner can safely be accommodated in that place without moving him out of Kozhikode. But it is seen by Ext. P-12 that post was filled up subsequently by another Doctor after judgment of this Court. Before filling up that post the Government sent communication Ext. B-9, dated 21st August 1990 informing that there is no vacancy at Kozhikode since the second respondent has already been transferred to Kozhikode and joined duty as Deputy Superintendent in Government Hospital, Kozhikode. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it is stated that he would like to be posted in Kasargode District. In this case I find no reason why the reasonable request of the petitioner and the second respondent should not be granted. 5. Like equitable estoppel in our country the principles of fairness also is to be considered as a factor giving independent cause of action to the aggrieved. Fairness has not been met to the petitioner. This Court by two judgments referred earlier indicated the course of fairness in action and the first respondent has chosen to ignore the same. There is also no reason or justification for deviating from the guidelines issued. Fairness has not been met to the petitioner. This Court by two judgments referred earlier indicated the course of fairness in action and the first respondent has chosen to ignore the same. There is also no reason or justification for deviating from the guidelines issued. I am not saying that the guideline gives enforceable right to the petitioner or the second respondent, but the Government who issued the guideline cannot ignore the same. Two earlier decisions of this Court aforementioned make this position clear. What is important in the modern administration is the fairness; of procedure and the elimination of element of arbitrariness. The administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. The administrative power in a democratic set up is not allergic to fairness in action and discretionary executive justice cannot degenerate into unilateral injustice. Fairness is flexible and it is intended for improving the quality of Government by injecting fairplay into its wheels. Fairness is a fundamental principle of good administration. It is a rule to ensure, that the vast power in the modern State is not abused ' but properly exercised. Fairness is thus a prime test for proper and good administration. These principles have been laid down in Mgt. of Nally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. State of Bihar and others 1990 (11) LLJ. 211. This Court has already directed the respondents to reconsider the matter and exercise its discretion. In appropriate cases this Court itself can give direction to pass appropriate order which the Administrative authority is required to pass. The Supreme Court in Comptroller and Auditor General v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 S.C.J. 1 observed: "There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Art.226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which, such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred up on the Government' or a public authority and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court, may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion." The Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Rajan 1989 (2) K.L.T. 666 , held that transfers are effected in respect of transferable posts in the exigencies of service. A Government servant who occupies a transferable post has no right to insist that he should be continued in a particular place or that he should be transferred to a particular place of his choice. There is no condition of service implied or express in this behalf, and that is a matter entirely of administrative discretion to be exercised in the larger interests of administration. Even though the State Government enunciated guidelines in the matter of effecting transfers, any deviation from those guidelines also does not amount to violation of any conditions of service. But when the power of transfer is abused or not used properly, the exercise of power itself is vitiated. If the court is satisfied that the transfer power has not been exercised in public interest the order" can be interfered with under Art.226. Inspite of the two clear pronouncement of this Court, petitioner's case has not been properly considered by the first respondent. By Ext. t-9, the Government informed the Advocate General that they do not find any ground for allowing the request of the petitioner. The first ground mentioned for denying the request of the petitioner is that he was working in Kozhikode for more than seven years in different caders and therefore, there is no justification for allowing him to continue there. But the petitioner was posted as Deputy Superintendent on promotion to Kozhikode on 23rd February 1989. The first ground mentioned for denying the request of the petitioner is that he was working in Kozhikode for more than seven years in different caders and therefore, there is no justification for allowing him to continue there. But the petitioner was posted as Deputy Superintendent on promotion to Kozhikode on 23rd February 1989. The fact that he was working as Assistant Surgeon or Civil Surgeon or as Resident Medical Officer, Mental Hospital in Kozhikode District are all irrelevant considerations in considering as to whether the petitioner could be retained in Kozhikode as Deputy Superintendent of Kozhikode General Hospital until his retirement on 31st July 1991. Similarly the fact that the second respondent has already joined duty at Kozhikode is also not a ground against posting the petitioner at Kozhikode especially when second respondent also require a posting to Kasargode where there are still vacancies. Thus, on a perusal of the entire facts, I am satisfied that the first respondent acted arbitrarily and on irrelevant consideration ignoring relevant facts in denying the legitimate request of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am convinced that in the interest of justice and fair play this court should issue a direction to the first respondent to post the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent to the Government General Hospital, Kozhikode transferring and posting the second respondent therefrom as Deputy District Medical Officer at Kasargode where the post is still vacant for which posting the second respondent is also an applicant. I do so. I direct these postings be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.