JUDGMENT 1. - In these Special Appeals the appellants have challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th July, 1990 rejecting the writ petitions. 2. Brief facts of the case (Appeal No. 268/90) are that the appellant- petitioner was transferred in the public interest vide Annexure-1 dated 22nd December, 1989 from Nawalgarh to Lunkaransar. Appellant-petitioner has challenged this transfer order on. the ground that the order dated 22nd December, 1989 (Annex.1) is absolutely arbitrary. It was also submitted in the writ petition that the order being violative of the aforesaid provisions of the Rules of 1975 i.e. Agriculture Produce Markets Service Rules 1975 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. There is an allegation of malafide to this extent that transfer order has been issued on the desire of the Minister concerned to accommodate non- petitioner No.4 which amounts to undue interference of the politicians in the matter of transfer within the ambit of the aforesaid Rules of 1975. The Minister is not a party in the writ petition. Case of the appellant in appeal No. 269/90 is more or less identical. 3. Learned Single judge has held that in case of transfer from one division to another so far as the employee is transferred otherwise on his own request his seniority has to be taken into consideration after taking into account his past continuous service which counts for seniority in that category in the old market Committee. Thus the dispute relating to the seniority was decided in favour of the present appellants. However, the learned single Judge further held that if the Minister concerned can have no power to transfer in the department under him who else will have power to transfer him. Orders are passed by the competent authority ultimately on the desire of the Minister. None can take objection unless mala fides are shown so far as the Minister incharge of the Department is concerned. The transfer order was maintained and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Hon'ble Minister had no jurisdiction to express his desire in the matter of transfer and it should be presumed that it is malice in law. 5. The transfer order was maintained and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Hon'ble Minister had no jurisdiction to express his desire in the matter of transfer and it should be presumed that it is malice in law. 5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the transfer order was passed to accommodate others (non-petitioner No.4) which has resulted in their up- rooting. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited before us the case of (1) Om Prakash Sharma V. State of Rajasthan ( 1989 (1) R.L.R. 826 ) . 6. In Om Prakash Sharma's case the learned Single Judge of this court held that transfer made on desire or direction of Minister or his Private Secretary is arbitrary and suffers from malice in law as such the same should be quashed. Thus the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that case is different from the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the present cases. 7. The Division Bench of this court in the case of (2) Shambhu Dayal Kureel Vs. Union of India (1982 R.L.R. 181) has held that "In public service transfer is an incident of service is often necessary for a proper management and control of administrative machinery. It can therefore be said that the power of transfer is an essential attribute of the power of the administrative control. Since the transfers are made for reasons of administrative exigencies the authority incharge of the administration would be best judge of the propriety necessity or desirability of such transfer. The exercise of administrative discretion in the matter of transfer of an employee from one post to another would not be open to challenge except when the said discretion has been exercised in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner so as to violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 if the transfer is made on account of exigencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a lower post. Their Lordships further held that it is for the Government to consider who should be transferred. Retention of persons for more than 20 Years at one place and transferring the petitioner after 51/2 Years cannot be said to be discriminatory. Their Lordships further held that it is for the Government to consider who should be transferred. Retention of persons for more than 20 Years at one place and transferring the petitioner after 51/2 Years cannot be said to be discriminatory. Their Lordships further held that when the petitioner makes out a prima facie case of malafides the respondent Government is bound to place full material before the Court to justify its action. The Court held that the Court can call for the record. The Court further held that it is for the Government servant who is assailing the order to establish malice on the part of the authority who has passed the order because the burden of establishing malafides lies on the person who alleges it. The Court further held that the allegations of malafides are often easily made than proved and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of high order of credibility". Thus the court rejected the appeal of the employee. 8. In the case of (3) Hari Mohan Dube Vs. State of Rajasthan ( 1989 (1) R.L.R. 36 ) the Division Bench of this Court held in the said case that the transfer order should not be interfered unless malafide is proved. 9. There are four kinds of bias which have been recognised by the Courts and eminent Jurists namely (i) bias of subject matter (ii) pecuniary bias (iii) personal bias (iv) legislative bias. 10. It is said that Judge cannot be free from predilection. Thus a more general interest in the general object to be pursued would not disqualify or would not stand in the way of a Judge in deciding a case. The instance on this point has been cited by Griffith and Street in principles of Administrative Law. It is as follows:- "A mere general interest in the general object to be pursued would not disqualify said Field J. holding that a Magistrate who subscribed to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was not thereby disabled from trying a charge brought by that body for cruelty to a hOrse. There must be some direct connection with the litigation. There must be some direct connection with the litigation. If there is such prejudice on the subject-matter that the Court has reached fixed and unalterable conclusions not founded on reason or understanding so that there is not a fair hearing that is bias of which the Court will take account as where a justice announced his intention of convicting any one coming before him on a charge of supplying liquor after the permitted hours." From the above observations it follows that a Judge stands on a higher footing than the administrative or the Executive head. However, in these appeals we are concerned only with the bias of subject matter. A mere interest of an administrative officer in the matter of transfer cannot in all cases be treated as a case of bias. Generally speaking the transfers are made to accommodate some one and that results in uprooting of the other. At times transfers are made on the recommendations of the Minister of a particular department or of a particular area; likewise the representatives of the public also make recommendations for effecting transfer of Government servants. Such recommendations may be in public interest or may not be in public interest. 11. Our country is a member of the common wealth and we have borrowed much from the Constitutions of the Common wealth countries and other countries. In the Book Australian Constitutional Law by Fajgenbaum and Hanks Chapter - IV deals with the Ministerial responsibilities. The author has said "Even if we can trace a pattern it would be a gross error to expect "rules" of political responsibility in Australia to mirror those regarded as established within the United Kingdom. There are peculiar features in the local political structure in particular that lack of a stable two party system and the relationship between Parliamentary and extra-parliamentary branches of political parties. These features must have some influence on the patterns of political behaviour. Minister alone speaks for a civil servant to the House and to his civil servants for the House. The conventional and Ministerial responsibilities have both proleptic and compulsive features of "rule". While discussing the political responsibilities and in number of cases it has been expressed that the statement of fact is not a code in politics and Ministerial responsibility what is more a statement of fact it comes from close of being truism. The conventional and Ministerial responsibilities have both proleptic and compulsive features of "rule". While discussing the political responsibilities and in number of cases it has been expressed that the statement of fact is not a code in politics and Ministerial responsibility what is more a statement of fact it comes from close of being truism. 'Truism' is that the Minister will have to satisfy the parliamentarians and the Legislators as he can remain in office only upto the time of confidence of the Parliamentarians and Legislators. Extra parliamentary parties and Legislators and the Parliamentarians dictate the policy to the Government. 'Sydney Daily Telegraph published article-"Under the Caucus system the Government is to have no responsibility and is pledged to do as the Caucus orders it irrespective of its own convictions. This involves a radical change from the methods under which responsible Government has hither- to been conducted. Parliament instead of being an arena of open discussion will be turned into an office for simply registering decisions arrived in secret enclave. The paper has gone to the extent that "Ministry will be an automation without political life or political responsibility." 12. This is the extreme view and it is very difficult for us to accept the view published in the Article of Daily Telegraph. 13. So far as our country is concerned we have adopted the Parliamentary system of Government. There are wings of the State namely Legislature Judiciary and the Executive and all the three wings function on the principle of check and balance. The Legislature has to make the laws and lay down the policies for the governance of the country. Executive is required to carry-out these policies in day to day administration of the country, the Judiciary has been assigned the role of keeping the executive within the bounds of the constitutional parameters and the laws enacted by the legislature. Parliamentarians and Legislators are representatives of the people. They represent the will and wishes of the people of a particular area to which they represent in the Parliament or the State Legislature. It is their solemn duty to act as a watch dog of the interest of the public to which they represent. Parliamentarians and Legislators are representatives of the people. They represent the will and wishes of the people of a particular area to which they represent in the Parliament or the State Legislature. It is their solemn duty to act as a watch dog of the interest of the public to which they represent. Their duties and responsibilities are immense and righteous and precisely for this reason during the last 40 years of the working of the Constitution it has been realised that the members of parliament and the Legislature must see that the Government and particularly the executive discharges its functions in the larger public interest. The Parliamentarians and the Legislators will have to develop his constituency and he is responsible for the development of his constituency in particular and to the people of the State and Country in general. Ministers are normally chosen from amongst the representatives of the people. The Ministerial responsibility is obviously more than that of the parliamentarians or the Legislators. The Minister has to conduct himself in such a manner so as to inspire confidence not only to the people to whom he represents but also the representatives of the people. Normally a Minister who loses the confidence of the representatives of the people he cannot remain in office. 14. In this back-ground we will have to consider the questions Ministerial responsibilities rights and powers of the Legislators Parliamentarians and political parties in extra political branch. 15. It is for the representatives of the public to Judge as to whether a particular Officer is suited for a particular work in his area or not. He has a right to ask the Minister for a change of the Government servant and posting of some other Government servant. The resultant uprooting of a Government servant from one place cannot ordinarily be said to be a result of bias or malafide. We cannot accept the contention that a recommendation of the representative of the public namely the member of. the State Legislature or that of the Parliament or a mere desire of a Minister for posting of a particular Government servant in a particular area should be treated as vitiated by bias mala fide or bad faith. In the Parliamentary system of democracy; it cannot for a moment be accepted that executive is only the Judge for the needs of the people of a particular area. In the Parliamentary system of democracy; it cannot for a moment be accepted that executive is only the Judge for the needs of the people of a particular area. The executive authorities cannot be placed at a higher pedestal in comparison to public representatives. There fore; if the representatives of the people or the Minister make any desire for transfer of Government servant the same cannot ordinarily be interfered with by the court unless it is established that the desire was actuated by the personal bias or malice or for some extraneous consideration. It cannot be laid down as a rule that in every case of transfer on the desire of Minister or the Member of the Legislature or the Parliament it must be held that the transfer is vitiated by malice in law. The malice in law cannot be presumed to be existing in such cases. Only when the blatant misuse of power or violation of law is established then the Court would interfere with the order of transfer. We also do not accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Minister cannot be said to be the representative for the Government. The Minister of a Department is ordinarily the highest responsible functionary regarding different matters relating to working of his department. In large number of matters the decisions are taken by the Minister of Department. In any case he is an authority higher than the executive/bureaucratic functionaries of the department and therefore if the Minister expresses desire or accepts the recommendation of the representatives of the people for transfer of an officer/employee from a particular place or posting of another officer/employee at such place no exception can be taken. This consideration is a 'truism' in the life of the politicians and the Ministers. It is the duty of the Minister to see the general development of the State as a whole and development of the country as a whole is carried out particularly the nursing and welfare of those persons by whose confidence he is in the power. If the M.L.A. or the M.P. asks for the transfer of the particular officer or of a particular person and further requests for the appointment of a particular person for the better development of his constituency and better nursing of his constituency no exception can be taken to it. If the M.L.A. or the M.P. asks for the transfer of the particular officer or of a particular person and further requests for the appointment of a particular person for the better development of his constituency and better nursing of his constituency no exception can be taken to it. On the contrary he performs part of his duty for the better development of his Constituency. 16. Mere desire of the Minister that a particular person should be posted at a particular place is not a case of bias. A Minister ordinarily does not know the man who is to be posted. He acts on the advice of the public representative for the betterment of the area. It is not a case of bias but it is the performance of duty cast on the Minister and to assist the public representative in the discharge of his duties. The Minister can take suomotu action also. Posting of one may amount up-rooting of the other; up-rooting the other cannot be termed suffering from bias as everything is done for the betterment of the area. None can know better than a public representative as to what are the requirements of the area how the problems can be solved and what type of assistance the public representative wants for the betterment of the Constituency. 17. Democracy is not only the Government but democracy is a social organisation of the elected representatives who can better know than others the contingencies exigencies and the needs of the area. 18. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that only the Minister can know better and all the powers cannot be delegated to bureaucracy depriving the Minister to act. We do not agree with the view taken in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) that the desired transfer could be considered as a malice in law. 19. In the result both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******