Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ application having been heard at great length at the stage of admission itself is being finally disposed of. 2. The petitioner who is a Civil Surgeon of Ranchi has filed this writ application for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus for quashing an order of transfer dated 24.1.1991, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application whereby and whereunder he was transferred from Ranchi to the post of Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Saharsa. 3. The petitioners case in short is that one Mrs, Anna Kujur was in the dual charge of Deputy Director of Health, Hazaribagh and Civil Surgeon cum-Chief Medical Officer Ranchi. The petitioner was posted at Ranchi as additional Chief Medical Officer by a notification dated 16-12-1989. By reason of another notification dated 30th November, 1990 which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application the petitioner was allegedly promoted and posted at Ranchi with effect from 1-1-1991.3. Mr. Basudeo Prasad learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that although the petitioner joiaed the post of Civil surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer only on 1-1-1991, only after 23 days of his joining at Ranchi in the said post, he is sought to be transferred by reason of the impugned order. Learned counsel contended that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order as to the existence of any administrative exigency in passing the order of transfer as against the petitioner. It may be stated here that by reason of the impugned order, respondent No.4 has been transferred to the post of the petitioner. 4. In this case counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 4 respondent No.2 in its conter-affidavit stated that the matter relating to the posting of the petitioner as Civil Surgeon Saharsa was pending consideration and the said proposal was placed before the Establishment Committee which recommended that the petitioner be posted at Saharsa and the said order was Issued after obtaining the approval of the Chief Minister, Bihar. It was contended that by the notification dated 30-11-1990 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application the petitioner was posted at Ranchi till further orders. It has further been contended that as Civil Surgeon saharsa has been suspended, the petitioner has been posted there in the interest of State. It was contended that by the notification dated 30-11-1990 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application the petitioner was posted at Ranchi till further orders. It has further been contended that as Civil Surgeon saharsa has been suspended, the petitioner has been posted there in the interest of State. It was further contended that respondent No.4 has already taken over charge on 31-1-1991. 5. Respondent No.4 in his counter-affidavit contended that the posting of Chief Medical Officer at a particular place is normally for a period of two years. It has further been contended that from the noticsation dated 1st december, 1980 which contains the guidelines for transfer as contained in annexure A/4 to the counter affidavit, it would appear that normally transfer and posting shall not be done at one place from one post to other post and upon transfer there would be change in the headquarters. 6. The other allegations made in the writ application is to the effect that the impugned order of transfer was passed in view of the influence exercised by respondent No.4 have also been denied. 7. The petitioner has filed a reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4 as also a supplementary affidavit. In the said reply for the first time the petitioner has brought on records a purported letter dated 20-11-1990 issued by one Surendra Prasad Yadav, M. L, A. to the Chief Minister, Bihar wherein allegedly it was recomended that respondent no.4 being a member of schedule tribe should be posted at Ranchi which is a tribal belt. The petitioner has further brought on record another letter dated 17-12-1990 issued by one Suraj Mandal, M. L. A. wherein it was requested that Smt. Anna Kujur should be allowed to stay at Ranehi up to january, 1991 upon cancellation of the notification dated 30-11-1990 and from February, 1991 Sri D. C. Ram, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, aurangabad should be posted at Ranchi in the said post. The said letter is contained in Annexure-13 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 25-2-1991. The said letter is contained in Annexure-13 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 25-2-1991. The petitioner has further brought on record a notesheet which is contained in Annexure-14 to the said reply for the purpose of showing how the matter relating to transfer of the petitioner vrs-a- vis respondent No.4 and other persons was taken into consideration by the State, and from the body of the said letter itself it would appear that the Chief Minister made direction to issue necessary notification. 8. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. wherein it has been stated that the said respondent does not know sri Surendra Pd. Yadav MLA nor he has any contact with him nor there was any occasion for him to approach the said M. L. A. It was further contended that as the petitioner belongs to the district of Gaya it is possible any easy for him to obtain a fabricated letter from the M. L. A. of Gaya district. It has further been contended that Annexure-7 has been prepared and produced before the court and the same was not in the concerned file before the issuance of the impugned order of transfer dated 24-1-1991. 9. With regard to the transfer of respondent No.4 to Gopalganj it is contended that Dr. Surendra Narayan Singh was posted as Additional Chief medical Officer at Gopalganj and as in Gopalganj there was only one post of chief Medical Officer, no resultant vacancy arose in the said post and as such respondent No.4 could not join there. It has again been reiterated that respondent No.4 has taken over charge on 31-1-1991. 10. Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from the facts which have been brought on record, it would be evident that the transfer of the petitioner was produced by and or at [the instance of the M. L As. According to the learned counsel this Court times without number has deprecated the practice of issuing order of transfer only on the basis of the M L. A. and without there being administrative exigency therefor Learned counsel further submitted that a frequent order of transfer cannot be said to be in the public interest. In this conneotlon reliance has been placed on B. Varadha Rao V/s. State of Karnataka and others, reported in air 1986 Sc 1955 . 11. In this conneotlon reliance has been placed on B. Varadha Rao V/s. State of Karnataka and others, reported in air 1986 Sc 1955 . 11. In the State of Bihar orders of transfer at the instance of influential members of the Legislative Asssembly are being frequently issued despite the fact that this Court has times without number deprecated the said practice. We fail to unterstand as to how the executive business of the State can be conducted at the instance of the Members of the Legislative Assembly and passing of orders by the Chief Minister on the body of the letters issued by the M. L. As. to him. 12. The State of Bihar In its wisdom has framed its policy decision relating to transfer and posting. It is expected of any State which is governed by role of law and not by rule of men that the policy decision adopted by the State which have the force of law would be substantially complied with. In terms of the said policy decision, inter alia, Establishment Committees have been constituted for considering the cases of transfer and posting. But it is evident that rules of procedures are bsng observed in breaches and the establishment Committees appear to have been making the recommendations relating to orders of transfers on the basis of proposal submitted before them at the instance of the M. L. As. and the Chief Minister. 13. However, in this case, it does not appear that the impugned order of transfer dated 24-1-1991 was passed on basis of the recommendations of any Member of Legislative Assembly. 14. From the perusal of the notification dated 24-1-1991, it appears that various Civil Surgeons Chief Medical Officer were transferred. It is true that the respondent No.4 while he was posted at Siwan was transferred to the vacant post of Addi, Chief Medical Officer at Gopalganj but there being only one post of Addl. Chief Medical Officer and the said post having been occupied by one Dr Surendra Narayan Singh, he could not join there. 15. The genuineness of Annexure-7 has been questioned. Chief Medical Officer and the said post having been occupied by one Dr Surendra Narayan Singh, he could not join there. 15. The genuineness of Annexure-7 has been questioned. As indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner in his writ application did not state that order of transfer of respondent No.4 to Ranchi was passed on the basis of the aforementioned recommendation of Sri Surendra Nath Yadav M. L. A. Respondent No.4 has contended that the said letter was a fabricated one and never formed part of records maintained by the State. In this situation, it is not possible for this Court to rely upon the statements made in the reply to the effect that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 was issued on having been influenced by the recommendation of M. L. A. (Anncxure-7), 16. So far as Annexure-13 to the supplementary affidavit is concerned, it is evident that the recommendation of Sri Suraj Mandal was neither in relation to respondent No.4 nor in relation to the petitioner. The petitioner by necessary implication has admitted that despite the said letter and despite the order passed by the Chief Minister on the body of the said letter dated 17-1-1991 Smt. Anna Kujur was not permitted to hold the dual charge of deputy Director (Heaith) Hazaribagh and Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical officer, Ranchi beyond 31-12-1990 inasmuch as evidently the petitioner was directed to take charge of the post of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical officer, Ranchi with effect from 1-1-1991. Similarly even D. C. Ram was also not posted there. 17. From Annexure-14 to the writ application, it appears that there was a proposal of the respondent No.4 being posted at Palamau. The said proposal did not materialise as one Dr. Krishna Nath Singh had already been posted there. 18. From the other parts of the notesheet it appears that the recommendations of the Establishment Committee to post respondent No.4 as Civil surgeon, Ranchi was made as far back as on 20-12-1990. In the said notesheet, the recommendations of Sri Suraj Mandal was also taken note of wherein it was stated that Smt. Anna Kujur should not be allowed to be posted there in view of serious allegations made as against her by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 19. So far as proposal for posting of Dr. In the said notesheet, the recommendations of Sri Suraj Mandal was also taken note of wherein it was stated that Smt. Anna Kujur should not be allowed to be posted there in view of serious allegations made as against her by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 19. So far as proposal for posting of Dr. Durga Charan Ram is concerned, it was pointed out that his case for transfer cannot be considered as he has recently been posted at Aurangabad. 20. From the aforementioned notesbeet it appears that therein the minister of State for Heaith recommended that in view of the order of the chief Minister Smt. Auna Kujur should be allowed to continue in the post of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer at Ranchi. 21. Evidently the aforementioned recomendations were not accepted and Smt. Anna Kujur was relieved from the post of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief medical Officer on 31-12-1990 and the petitioner joined the said post on 1-1-1991. 22. From the facts aforementioned, it is clear that it is not one of such cases where the order of transfer has been passed only on the basis of the recommendation of any MLA and without any application of mind by the concerned authorities. 23. From the facts as noticed here in before it is further clear that the commissioner of Health has put before the Minister of State for Health all the relevant facts and, thereafter, a decision had been taken. 24. The petitioner in terms of Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit filed an behalf of respondent No.4 should not have been posted ac Ranchi as evidently he was posted at Ranchi as Addl. Chief Medical Officer in terms of the notification dated 16-12-1989 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. Further from the notesheet of the Commissioner of Health as indicated hereinbefore, it is evident that the matter relating to the transfer of respondent No.4 in the post of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer ranchi was recommended by the Establishment Committee in its meeting 22-12-1990. 25. It Is, thus, possible that the petitioner was directed to take charge of the post of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi till a final decision was taken in the matter. 26. In B. Varadha Rao V/s. State of Karnataka and others reported in air 1986 Supreme Court 1955, the Supreme Court has held that transfer is an incidence of service. It Is, thus, possible that the petitioner was directed to take charge of the post of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi till a final decision was taken in the matter. 26. In B. Varadha Rao V/s. State of Karnataka and others reported in air 1986 Supreme Court 1955, the Supreme Court has held that transfer is an incidence of service. In Shanti Kumari V/s. Regional Deputy Director. Health Services, AIR 1981 SC 1577 , the Supreme Court has held that even if an order of transfer has been passed in violation of a decision of the State the remedy of the aggrieved employee is to file a representation before the concerned authorities. It was further held that in such cases the court of law should not interfere in such matters. 27. There cannot be any doubt as has been held by the Supreme Court in Varadhas case (supra) that frequent orders of transfer should not be taken recourse to. But in this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner was posted at Ranchi in December, 1989 and he was merely directed to hold charge till further orders on promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon-cum-Cniet medical Officer. 28. In this situation, in my opinion, it was permissible in law for the state of Bihar to pass suitable orders of tranfer in administrative exigency this Court in exercise of its writ Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot usurp the executive function of the State and decide as to whether the petitioner should not have been and the respondent no.4 should have been posted at Saharsa or not as was contended mr. Basudeo Prasad. 29. In this case, it cannot therefore be said that the order of transfer of the petitioner dated 24-1-1991 was passed mala fide. 30. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.