JUDGMENT 1. - This case is illustrative of the arbitrary exercise of the power of transfer as would appear from the uncontroverted allegations in the case. The petitioner has come to this Court against the order Annexure 6, dated 11th January, 1990, whereby he was withdrawn from the Government D.B.M. Hospital, Kotputli and was directed to report to the office of the CM & HO. Jaipur. The petitioner who is a male nurse Gr. II was transferred to Kotputli from Kalyanpuri. It appears from Annexure/1, letter dated 23rd October. 1989 that one Kailash Chand. Male Nurse Gr. II was posted at Kotputli and the Deputy Controller of the Government B.D.M. Hospital. Kotputli vide his letter dated 7th October, 1989. informed the CM & HO. Jaipur that there was no vacant post of Male Nurse Gr. II at the Government B.D.M. Hospital, Kotputli. With reference to this letter CM & HO. Jaipur sent letter dated 23rd October, 1989 to the Deputy Controller of the aforesaid hospital stating therein that Kailash Chand, Male Nurse Gr. II should be relieved and he may be directed to report to the office of the CM & HO, Jaipur. Thereafter a letter dated 27th November, 1989 was sent by the CM & HO. Jaipur to the Deputy Controller of the aforesaid hospital mentioning that Kailash Chand should be continued at this hospital as Male Nurse Gr. II and instead one Kamal Sharma, Male Nurse Gr. II may be sent to the office of the CM & HO. After a few days on 14th December, 1989, a letter was sent by the CM & HO, Jaipur to the Deputy Controller of the aforesaid hospital mentioning therein that Kamal Stiarma, Male Nurse Gr.II may also be continued at the aforesaid hospital at Kotputli and instead Male Nurse Gr. II with longest stay in this hospital at Kotputli may be relieved to report in the office of the CM & HO, Jaipur. In para 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that in compliance with the order dated 14th December, 1989, one Baluram, Male Nurse Gr. II who was with long stay at this hospital at Kotputli was to be relieved. But with reference to this letter dated 14th December, 1989, the CM & HO sent letter dated 21st December, 1989 to the Deputy Controller of the aforesaid hospital mentioning therein that Balu Ram, Male Nurse Gr. II who was with long stay at this hospital at Kotputli was to be relieved. But with reference to this letter dated 14th December, 1989, the CM & HO sent letter dated 21st December, 1989 to the Deputy Controller of the aforesaid hospital mentioning therein that Balu Ram, Male Nurse Gr. II may be retained at Kotputli and instead Kamal Sharma, Male Nurse Gr. II be relieved and be sent to the office of the CM & HO. It appears that the CH & MO could not maintain and stand even by this order dated 21st December, 1989 and again passed another order on 27th December, 1989 that Kamal Sharma be kept at the Government B.D.M. Hospital, Kotputli itself, and in the endorsement at item No. 1 of this order it has been mentioned that one Shri Surjeet Singh Yadav may be relieved and sent to Head quarters. On 11th January 1990, yet another order Annexure/6 was passed whereby Surjeet Singh Yadav was ordered to be retained at Kotputli and consequently the petitioner was ordered to be relieved to report to the office of CM & HO, Jaipur. 2. Against this order dated 11th January, 1990 this writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 18th January, 1990 and on 24th January, 1990 this Court while issuing a notice of this writ petition as to why the same may not be admitted/disposed of and also passed an interim order staying the operation of the order dated 11th January, 1990 in so far as it concerns the petitioner. It is on the strength of this order dated 24th January, 1990 that the petitioner is continuing at the Government BDM Hospital, Kotputli. The service was effected long back. When the matter came up before the Court on 8th March, 1990, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents before the Court despite notice, the court ordered that three weeks' time is granted to file reply failing which the matter will be heard for final disposal even without filing of reply by the respondents and the matter was posted for final disposal on 30th March, 1990. When the matter came up before the Court on 30th March, 1990, Shri Ashok Parihar, Addl. When the matter came up before the Court on 30th March, 1990, Shri Ashok Parihar, Addl. Government Advocate appeared on behalf of the State and sought two weeks' time to file reply and the Court ordered that the petitioner may file rejoinder within a week thereafter and, in the mean while the stay order was continued and the case was again posted for final disposal at order stage on 20th April, 1990. Even uptil now no reply has been filed. However, Shri Sharma Deputy Government Advocate has chosen to argue the case without filing the reply in view of the previous orders passed by this Court. 3. Shri Rajendra Soni appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is absolutely arbitrary and had been pas ed in an arbitrary and capricious exercise of power of transfer. The petitioner has been subjected to these transfers in order to accommodate other persons at this hospital. His client had been posted at Kotputli on 6th July, 1989 and time and again five orders were passed in a span of short period i.e. from 23rd October, 1989 to 27th December 1989. He was nowhere in picture and these orders would show that as and when some other male nurse Gr. II was desired to be shifted from Kotputli, such orders were got cancelled and ultimately the unfortunate choice fell against the petitioner while passing the order dated 11th January, 1990 (Annx. 6). Shri Soni has further submitted that the order dated 14th December, 1989 had been correctly passed reflecting the Government policy that male nurse with the longest stay should be relieved. But even this order, which was in conformity with the declared policy of the Government, was not adhered to because of the political pressure which the CM&HO could not sustain and all these orders were passed because the CM&HO succumbed to the political pressure in favour of different male nurse Gr. II with regard to whom these orders had been passed. He has submitted that it was Shri Balu Ram, Male Nurse Gr II with longest stay at Kotputli and, therefore, there was no justification to deviate from this policy to dislodge the petitioner from Kotputli where he had been posted only a few months back. 4. II with regard to whom these orders had been passed. He has submitted that it was Shri Balu Ram, Male Nurse Gr II with longest stay at Kotputli and, therefore, there was no justification to deviate from this policy to dislodge the petitioner from Kotputli where he had been posted only a few months back. 4. Shri Sharma has contested this writ petition and raised the contention that the petitioner has not made any representation against the order dated 11th January 1990 and straightway rushed to this Court. In this regard, he has placed reliance on Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram ( AIR 1989 SC 1433 ) Shri Sharma also argued that there are no specific allegations of mala tides and no person has been impleaded as a party by name and no one has been named who has exercised political pressure in order to precipitate the various orders passed from 23rd October, 1989 to 11th January, 1990. He has submitted that the Government has ample power to transfer under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the petitioner has no case and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the pleadings on the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties So far as the contention raised by Shri Sharma on the basis of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram (supra) is concerned, it would be sufficient to say that making of any representation in this case would have been an exercise in futility looking to the facts of this case. A representation may be useful and may yield some result when the facts and controversies are not known to the authorities concerned. Here is a case in which the CM&HO was fully aware and alive to the actual facts and circumstances and he knew the implications of various orders which he was passing. He also knew the Government policy in this regard and he also knew that the petitioner was not the person with longest stay but the orders which he passed from time to time clearly indicate that he has been oscillating as to who should be dislodged and who should be accommodated at Kotputli. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the State regarding representation has no force and the same is hereby rejected. 6. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the State regarding representation has no force and the same is hereby rejected. 6. Regarding the next contention raised by Shri Sharma that there are no specific allegations of mala fides and no person has been impleaded as party in this writ petition as respondents for the mala fide action, it may be straightway observed that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ramji Lal ( AIR 1971 SC 1228 ) has categorically ruled as under:- "9. Counsel for the State of Punjab contended that the plea that the action of State was not bona fide cannot be said to be established, unless the party alleging that case names the officer or officers guilty of conduct which justifies an inference that the official act was done for a collateral purpose, and since no such attempt was made and the High Court cannot find that any named officer or officers was oi were responsible for that official act the plea that it was not bona fide must fail. We do not think that the law casts any such burdon upon the party challenging the validity of the action taken by the State Government. The State Government has undoubtedly to act through its officers. What matters were considered, what matters were placed before the final authority, and who acted on behalf of the State Government in issuing the order in the name of the Governor, are all within the knowledge of the State Government, and it would be placing an intolerable burden in proof of a just claims to require a party alleging mala fides of State action to aver in his petition and to prove by positive evidence that a particular officer was responsible for misusing the authority of the State by taking action for a collateral purpose." 7. I have gone through the orders placed on record and I am more than convinced that this order has been passed for collateral purposes and for extraneous consideration. It is apparent from the orders that when one or another male nurse Gr. I have gone through the orders placed on record and I am more than convinced that this order has been passed for collateral purposes and for extraneous consideration. It is apparent from the orders that when one or another male nurse Gr. II who was already working at Government BDM Hospital, Kotputli was desired to be retained at Kotputli itself in contravention of the declared policy of the Government, Annexure/6 was passed only to make room for those who had the protection of the functionaries at the helm of affairs and the petitioner was ultimately chosen, perhaps because he could not muster up any support in his favour and was left with no alternative but to seek the protection of this Court. 8. Shri Sharma's contention with reference to Rule 20 of the RSR is devoid of force on account of the simple reason that Rule 20 only shows the Government's power to transfer. But, merely because an authority is possessed of a power, it does not mean that that power must be allowed to be exercised in an arbitrary manner without application of mind. An order can be held to be illegal even when the action taken under the Rule is arbitrary. Therefore, notwithstanding the power of transfer under Rule 20, if it appears to the Court that the action taken under such a rule is arbitrary and the power has been exercised for the reasons which are not germane and for the purposes which are neither permissible or authorised, under the law, such orders cannot be sustained. 9. Therefore, notwithstanding the power of transfer under Rule 20, if it appears to the Court that the action taken under such a rule is arbitrary and the power has been exercised for the reasons which are not germane and for the purposes which are neither permissible or authorised, under the law, such orders cannot be sustained. 9. I am of the considered opinion that here is a case in which the power under Rule 20, RSR has been exercised repeatedly in an arbitrary and capricious manner and it is plain and simple abuse of power under Rule 20 to accommodate one or the other person at a particular place, and it cannot be a proper administrative ground for passing an order under Rule 20, RSR and no material whatsoever has been furnished showing justification for passing this order and I find that the reasons which have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner could be the only reason attributable to the passing of this order and the order dated 11th January, 1990 is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and the power of transfer in this case has been exercised in an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner and the same is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 11th January, 1990, Annexure/6 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.Petition Allowed. *******