JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the legality of Annexures 4 and 9 issued by the Secretary Khadi Gramodhyog Sanstha Sangh. 2. The petitioner was appointed on trial basis for 3 months to work in the Accounts Department of the Rajasthan Khadi Gramodhyog Sanstha Sangh (hereinafter to be referred as."the Sangh"). He was confirmed with effect from 1.4.1983 as Assistant Worker in the Accounts Department. He was given the charge of Accountant vide order dated 12.3.1985 on the retirement of Shri Kalyan Chand Maheshwari. According to the petitioner, there is only one post of Accountant in the services of the Sangh and that too in the Head Office at Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. The petitioner had discovered certain irregularities in the functioning of the Department and he brought these irregularities to the notice of the Secretary vide his letters dated 8.10.1986 and 45.1987. According to the petitioner, this annoyed functionaries of the Sangh and while he was on leave since 25.9.1987, he was served with an order dated 24.9.87/5.10.1987 seeking to transfer him from Jaipur to Bikaner to take charge of Accounts and Stock Register. The petitioner made representations on 10.10.1987 and 12.10.1987 against this order of transfer. He stated that the transfer was deliberate act of harassment. He applied for extension of leave. This application was not entertained and instead he was asked to report at Bikaner vide letter 26.10.1987. By another order dated 23/24.12.1987 all applications for extension of leave were rejected and at the same time false allegations were levelled against the petitioner that he was working elsewhere. He protested against the aforesaid order. According to the petitioner the respondent-Sangh falls within the definition of term 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India being an instrumentality of the State. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer on the ground that it had been passed by the Secretary of' the Satigh, who did not have the competence to pass such order because such action could only be taken by the Managing Committee under Rule 27(7). He further submits that the order of transfer is actuated with malice and is a clear act of vindictiveness. 4. The respondent No.3 has submitted reply to the show cause notice issued by the court. He further submits that the order of transfer is actuated with malice and is a clear act of vindictiveness. 4. The respondent No.3 has submitted reply to the show cause notice issued by the court. In the reply, the respondent No.3 has asserted that the Sangh is not an instrumentality of the State, in as much as the State has no control over the activities of the Sangh. The Sangh is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Board of Directors are elected from amongst the members of the general body. According to the respondent No.3, the power of transfer vests with the Secretary of the Sangh. This transfer was made in the interest of the institution and for administrative reasons. The petitioner had been confirmed as Assistant Worker in the Pay Scale of 130-360 in the Accounts Department. On the retirement of Shri Kalyan Chand Maheshwari, he was given the charge of the work which was being done by him. No appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner appointing him as Accountant. When the order of transfer was sent to the petitioner, he read it and then refused to accept it by saying that he was on leave. Thereafter, the letter of transfer was sent to his residence but he was not available. Finally, it was sent by registered post on 26/27.10.1987. 5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and has also filed certain documents along with the rejoinder. 6. This Court, had in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.508/86 Madan Lal v. The Rajasthan Khadi Sangh decided on 15.12.1987, held that the Khadi Gramodhyog Sanstha Sangh is not the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Shri R.P. Sharma could not point out anything which could form basis for holding otherwise. In the light of the aforesaid decision, I do not consider it necessary to discuss' the question as to whether the respondent.No.3 is the State or not. Even otherwise, I find that there is no substance in the challenge made to the orders, Annexures 4 and 9. 7. There is no order on record, by which the petitioner had been appointed as Accountant. No Rules, Regulations or Bye-laws or Administrative instructions have been placed before the court to show that the petitioner has any right to hold the post of Accountant. 7. There is no order on record, by which the petitioner had been appointed as Accountant. No Rules, Regulations or Bye-laws or Administrative instructions have been placed before the court to show that the petitioner has any right to hold the post of Accountant. He was merely given charge in the Accounts Department on account of retirement of Shri Kalyan Chand Maheshwari. Thus the petitioner cannot claim that he has any legal right to hold the post of Account,ant. 8. So far as the transfer of the petitioner from Jaipur to Bikaner is concerned, he has not alleged any mala-fides against any authority of the Sangh. The facts which have come on record of the case clearly disclose that the order of transfer had been made in September, 1987. The order was sent to the petitioner while he was still in the office, but he refused to accept the same. Even when he was advised to accept the order, he refused to take the same. He did not hand over charge to Shri Salig Ram Gupta. Thereafter, charge was assumed by Shri Salig Ram Gupta on 5.10.1987. His applications for leave had been rejected. He was given one more opportunity to join at Bikaner, but he did not do so. Thereafter, it was found that he was working somewhere else. Regarding this also, he was sent communication dated 23/24.12.1987. 9. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 7.1.1988. The stay application was also filed alongwith the writ petition. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents on 3.2.1988 calling upon them to show cause as to why the writ petition may not be admitted and allowed. Notice of the stay application was also issued on 3.2.1988. Thereafter, the case remained pending for admission for more than two years. When the court inquired from the learned counsel for the parties as to whether the petitioner has even now joined at Bikaner or not, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he had not joined because he had filed the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No..3 stated that the petitioner was not working at Jaipur and he had not attended duties since after 25.8.1987 at any place. 10. The transfer has been recognised as an ordinary incident of service. Learned counsel for the respondent No..3 stated that the petitioner was not working at Jaipur and he had not attended duties since after 25.8.1987 at any place. 10. The transfer has been recognised as an ordinary incident of service. After a person joins service, he is bound to serve within his cadre at all places where the offices/units of his employer might be. If it is All India Service, he has to serve in every part of the country. If it is a State service, he has to serve in every part of the State. Likewise, in the Public Sector under-takings, Corporations, Companies or even in private sector, the employee has to serve in every part of the Country. In cases of enterprizes having jurisdiction within the State, the employees are bound to serve in every nook and corner of the State. It is primarily for the employer to decide as to who would serve at a particular place. It is a prerogative of the employer to chose the place of posting of its employees. It is for the employer to decide as to tone of the working of an institution or organisation or department and to transfer employees from one place of posting to another. The court does not interfere in the exercise of this prerogative of the employer except in exceptional cases. Such exceptional cases are, where the transfer has been made in breach of some provisions of law or the transfer has been made for extraneous consideration, or where the transfer is contrary to public interest or the interest of administration. The Court cannot substitute' its own opinion in place of the opinion of the employer about the requirement and efficiency of service, interest of service or the interest of administration. There is no warrant for argument that court should assume the role of employer by frequent interference with the orders of transfer. The court interferes with the order of the transfer as and when it finds that the order is contrary to law and is actuated with malice or is wholly arbitrary. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner as already mentioned above, does not have any right to hold the post of Accountant. The court interferes with the order of the transfer as and when it finds that the order is contrary to law and is actuated with malice or is wholly arbitrary. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner as already mentioned above, does not have any right to hold the post of Accountant. Therefore, his claim that he cannot be posted at Bikaner, is groundless and is wholly untenable: Merely because he was given charge at Jaipur, he can hardly claim that he had been appointed as Accountant. The plea that the order of transfer would result in lowering of his status or will, in any way, effect his rank, is wholly misconceived. The order of transfer has neither resulted in reduction in the rank of the petitioner nor reduction in the salary. Simply because the petitioner had made certain allegations of intgularities, that cannot lead to an inference that the order of transfer was made on account of mala-fide of any particular officer of the Sangh. 11. So far as the argument regarding competence of the Secretary is concerned, it could be seen from the record he had been appointed by the order of the Secretary and was confirmed on the post of Assistant Worker by the order of the Secretary. He was given charge of Shri Kalyan Chand Maheshwari by order of the Secretary. The constitution of the Sangh, which has been placed on record refers to the powers and duties of the Managing Committee as also that of the Secretary. Para 27 -of the Rules, refers to the powers of the Secretary, which includes the power of appointment of employees, their removal and transfer etc. Thus the Secretary had full authority to pass the order of transfer of the petitioner from Jaipur to Bikaner. I do not find any substance in any of the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. There is an additional reason, why no indulgence should be shown to the petitioner by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Assuming for a moment that the petitioner had any justifiable grievance in the matter of transfer or in the matter of functioning of the Sangh, he could hardly assume the role of entire management. 12. There is an additional reason, why no indulgence should be shown to the petitioner by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Assuming for a moment that the petitioner had any justifiable grievance in the matter of transfer or in the matter of functioning of the Sangh, he could hardly assume the role of entire management. The petitioner had though that once he had levelled allegations, the should be treated as proved and that he had secured licence to stay at Jaipur in the Head Office. When the order of transfer was passed and it was sent to him, he refused to accept it after having read the same. He insisted on not accepting the order of transfer despite advise by the Senior Officers. When the order of transfer was sent to his residence, he avoided the same. Thereafter, it was served upon him at hi; residence registered post inspite the fact that the order of transfer had been sent by registered post in the month of October, 1987, he did not comply with the same. He continued to send applications for leave and extension thereof. His applications were also rejected and he was told that non-joining at Bikaner was an act of indiscipline.: He was warned of adverse consequences for not joining at Bikaner. The petitioner however, remained adament in not joining at Bikaner. He filed writ petition before this court on 7.1.1988 and applied for grant of stay. This court did not consider it appropriate to pass stay order in his favour. NoW more than 3 years and 2 months have passed since the issuance on the order of transfer and the petitioner still continues to flout the order of transfer. This is clearly an illustration of act of gross indiscipline on the part of the employee to decide for himself who has taken upon himself the task of deciding whether the order of transfer was right or wrong. He has assumed that he is the Master of situation and that he is under the control of none. Even though the employer had written to him that his difficulties will be considered after he joins at Bikaner. There has been a growing tendency in the employees of the Government, public sector under-takings, companies and Corporations and even bodies like respondent No.3 to disobey, flout or defy the orders passed by the superior authorities. Even though the employer had written to him that his difficulties will be considered after he joins at Bikaner. There has been a growing tendency in the employees of the Government, public sector under-takings, companies and Corporations and even bodies like respondent No.3 to disobey, flout or defy the orders passed by the superior authorities. This tendency has assumed dangerous proportions. The growth of this tendency has resulted in serious arosen in the efficiency of services and particularly of public services. The ultimate sufferer is the public itself. Therefore, in such matters, the court has to adopt a very cautious approach. it is true that the Courts are required to protect the rights of individuals against arbitrary actions of the State and its instrumentalities. However, at the same time, the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that there has been a decline in the efficiency of public services and that is largely due to the unwarranted tendency amongst the employees of all categories to ignore or disobey the order of superiors. The Court cannot become a mute spectator of these developments and cannot abate this tendency. In my view, there is absolutely no ground for showing any sympathy or compassion or indulgence to a person who is found to have continuously defied the order of his employer for over three years. It is really amasing that the employer has kept silence in a case of ranked indiscipline for such a long period. This only shows lack of courage or competence on the part of the employer to proceed even in such cases of indiscipline. 13. In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the question, as to whether the employer could impose punishment of removal from service on the employee for having defied the order of transfer. The High Court of Gujarat accepted the writ petition filed by one Atma Ram against his removal for failure to comply with the order of transfer. While allowing the appeal filed by the Gujrat State Electricity Board v. Alma Ram ( AIR 1989 SC 1433 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "Transfer of a Govt. Servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post from one place to other is an incident of service. No Government or employee of the public under-taking has a legal right for being posted at any particular place. Servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable post from one place to other is an incident of service. No Government or employee of the public under-taking has a legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order. But if there is any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer, it is upon him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled, the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of transfer order, a public servant has 110 justification to avoid transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of difficulty in moving from one place to other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance of the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules as has happened in the instant case as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to other." In my view these observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are very appropriately applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. The result of the above discussion is that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the respondent No. 3.Wrist Petition Dismissed with costs. *******